/lit/ - Literature

>>22260150
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

>>22260150
(and that's a good thing)

Don't despair, OP. In the end Christ and the saints will restore the Church, as they have in times past.

Sedevacantism is a glowie psyop.

>>22260150
This is why I’m Armenian Orthodox. Plus they have the most beautiful women

>>22260196
Armenia is a post-soviet republic, you couldn't be more modern if you tried. OP wants a Catholic Saudi Arabia because he fried his brain playing Crusader Kangz

>>22260150
The Papacy is the seat of the Antichrist and its Civic statehood is the Beast its end time syncretism and liberalism is the master stroke of Satan and the vehicle thru which the one world religion will be brought about

>>22260150
Ok step one, the church came and went more often than not

>>22260150
Why wasn't Christianity strong enough to stop liberalism?

>>22261112
Nothing can stop liberalism. Also, go away with 'the might is right' bullshit, chud.

The reddit spacing was nothing less than a surrender to faggotry.
>The Vatican II revolution was nothing less than a surrender to the precepts of liberalism
Good.
>This all changed after the two world wars.
Good.
>The liberal conception of the State was fully endorsed at Vatican II.
Good.
>The State now no longer had the duty to uphold the true religion, or to work to the Christianisation of society, but was to remain neutral in religious matters
Good. Imagine a religion so shitty and retarded sharia gestapo has to lawfully enforce it.
>The liturgy was democratised and stripped of its ancient grandeur and elitism.
Good.
>For the first time, the mass was said in vernacular instead of Latin, and the priest faced the congregation instead of the altar.
That's just outright factually fucking wrong.
>The antisemitic prayers, referring to the perfidious Jews, were pulled out, as well as all the references to Hell, sin, enemies of the Church, and damnation. This all symbolised the democratic, accepting nature of the new religion pushed from the Vatican.
Idol of the sedecs, Pius XII, was the most vivid proponent of these changes and yet, they still consider him the last "true" pope.
>The "Popes" since then have tirelessly worked to expunge all that was left of Catholic tradition from their new religion.
Good.
>they have unanimously condemned the death penalty, though it was always upheld as just. They have worked to de-Catholicise Catholic states such as Salazaar's Portugal.
Good.
>"Pope" John Paul II was the first in 2000 years of history to pray in a synagogue, and the first to endorse wives working outside of the home.
Good.
>Today's "Pope" Francis is even crazier. Soon we will see them ordaining women to the priesthood and blessing same sex unions.
Good.
>In short, Vatican II is a new religion. It is just one of the "revolutions" sweeping through Europe since the Enlightenment.
If Roman Catholicism was a true religion, Holy Spirit would defend it from subversion. He didn't, and that says it all.
>I have expressed this poorly
That you have.
>because I am tired
Not an argument.

>>22260150
Woooah, maybe our objective morality isn't objective at all.... Woooooah!!!!!

>>22261121
Just kidding xD I know the answer. It's because it's an illegitimate Jewish cult founded by vicious, semi-literate subhuman shitskins who lied constantly and whipped themselves up into a blood frenzy as soon as given Imperial sanction.
Liberalism owns you because you are degenerate. It will defeat Islam too.

>>22260188
Core tenets of the RomCath are visible body under a visible see. If you follow one of the million episcopi vagantes willy nilly consecrated by Thuc or Lefebvre, you are not a Roman Catholic, you are an episcopalian. Cannot be simpler than that.

>>22260150
>The Vatican II revolution was nothing less than a surrender to the precepts of liberalism
Tradcaths are hilariously deluded. Papal infallibility and "doctrinal development" were promulgated a century before Vatican II. Good luck safeguarding tradition with fealty to a church that gives infallible power to "develop" doctrine to a single bishop. Who could have foreseen that would lead to heresy? The problem must be Vatican II!!!!

>>22261121
>Nothing can stop liberalism.

I mean, nothing is unstoppable under the sun, it's just a matter of how much violence and social disorder you're willing to tolerate to kill the thing you want to kill.

This is a consistent feature of history if you bother to read it honestly. You actually can kill ideas, you've just got to be prepared to kill a lot of other things in the process.

>>22261140
>>22261164
OP is a dumb sede but reddit-tier posts like these make me side more with him.

>>22260173
Vive le roi**
la gueuse, on la pendra

>>22261140
>The reddit spacing
It's called a paragraph, you turbo faggot. Why do I even bother entering christcuck threads on 4chins, pretty much all of you people are either retarded or autistic, sometimes both.

>>22261168
Why do anti-Trads always assert that Catholicism consists of nothing but submission to the man claiming to be Pope in the Vatican? Catholicism is an actual body of doctrines which actually teaches something real that the Vatican II religion contradicts

>>22261625
put submission to the Pope is part of Catholicism, you cant have one without the other, the whole point of the Papacy is to submit ones private judgement.

>>22260188
And in the meantime, everyone is just supposed to go to hell, huh?

Material conditions have never been better, and spiritual conditions have never been poorer. We really do live in the end times from an immaterial point of view, and metaphysically speaking this has never been harder to reach gnosis and salvation. Contemporary soteriology is heavily compromised. How can anyone follow God in this forsaken epoch, when counter-initiation runs rampant and all tradition is being trampled?

>>22261756
Yes but Sedevacantism has always maintained that the man currently claiming to be the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is actually an antipope and heads a false sect no different from any other heretical Church.

You just assume that Francis is the Pope and then assert that Sedevacantists are being disobedient. But that's an argument by assumption, since the question is whether he is the Pope or not.

It would be like this:
>Catholic: I do not accept the Anglican Church to be legitimate
>Anglican: But part of being a Catholic is submitting to the Church; the Church of England is the Catholic Church spoken of in the creed, therefore you must submit to her!

In this conversation the Anglican simply assumes that the Church of England is identical to the Catholic Church. In our conversation you simply assume that the Vatican II Church is identical to the Catholic Church. But neither of you have made an argument for this proposition.

I no more accept the authority of Francis and his Vatican II Church than I accept the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Anglican Church. Both of them are false, heretical churches.

The King of England occupied the formerly Catholic buildings through arms and converted them into the Anglican Church. The Vatican II revolutionaries occupied the formerly Catholic buildings through cunning and converted them into the Vatican II Church. But that does not mean they are in continuity with the true Church that used to operate in these same buildings. The buildings do not equal the Church.

>>22260150
There would be even fewer catholics today if they kept the Latin mass. Nobody wants to sit in silence and listen to some shit they can't understand, deal with it

true but it's hard not to smirk looking from the outside, as if this has been the exception and not in many ways the rule of christianism to mutate and adapt to the underlining nature of the host to seek a measly survival to new conditions; they are just trying to survive because they were too coward to accept full on destruction
plus the kind of subversion used has been more or less perfected and employed by christians themselves for centuries to get gentiles to abandon their own religions, this is just getting a taste of your own medicine

>>22262106
The traditional Latin mass is elitist, medieval, mystical, esoteric, inaccessible to the modern man. It cuts against the democratic, liberal spirit of the modern world. It stands as a great counter-symbol to the world of today. That's why they wished to suppress it. All their changes were aimed at democratising, updating, matching the liturgy to modernity. The battle between the Traditional Latin Mass versus the new mass is just a microcosm of the great metaphysical war raging on in our civilisation.
>There would be even fewer catholics today if they kept the Latin mass
It doesn't matter. The Church's spirit does not permit the liberal monstrosity that is the new mass. Popularity is meaningless; most people will not go to heaven. It was already predicted by Christ that the Church would shrink to a miniscule size before the end of the world.

>>22262106
>Nobody wants to sit in silence
You're encouraged to pray the rosary and meditate during those moments.

>>22260150
The sect of evil will always win its battles, but has decisively already lost the war. Reading history, especially that of the Church, proves remedial against alarmism and despair. Though the boat should crash in the storm, God never changes. And should it break, it will break against such rock.

>>22262239
Finally someone on this godforsaken board who isn't a hylic and has an actual soul. May we meet in the kingdom of God when all is said and sone.

>>22262343
is picrel picrel?

>>22262106
Lots of people around the world cherish times of spiritual introspection and cultivate interiority and personal gnosis on a daily basis. Christians, hindus, buddhists and muslims alike are encouraged to practice inner faith and those of them who like a more esoteric approach wouldn't mind at all being preached in a language they don't necessarily understand. Just because you're a soulless husk of a post-everything hylic materialist doesn't mean everyone else is.

>>22262239
Lotta grandiose language to express the simple desire to be a good and special boy

>>22262421
keep coping

>>22262421
The architects of the revolution all agree with me that their aim was a "reconciliation with the world as it had become since 1789 (the French Revolution)" (a paraphrased quote from "Cardinal" Ratzinger, later "Pope" Benedict XVI). They just think it's a good thing. They think the modern world is one that can be reconciled with, even though the Popes prior to them had absolutely rejected it in categorical terms. So nothing I have said should be controversial, since they themselves admit this.

>>22262525
To be fair, one needs a lot of courage to stand against the tide of time, especially in an era of decay and degeneration such as the Kali Yuga which we currently experience. This is the toughest epoch there is to reach spiritual enlightenment and defend the past heritage

>>22262644
I know it is but Catholic prelates are supposed to be prepared for this. They abjure marriage and children and dedicate their lives to God. They have no family to threaten, no wealth to give up. They have nothing to lose but their own lives. That they did this is a sign of monstrous cowardice.

>>22262644
The Kali Yuga began in like 3000 BC

>>22262659
I have to agree. The wave of so-called progress sadly spares no one, which is a sure sign of the End

>>22262660
The seeds of disintegration have been present for a long time indeed, even among the ancient Greek civilization. However it's quite evident that it is intensifying by the minute. The pace of decadence has been accelerating rapidly since the advent of the industrial revolution and I really don't see how we're supposed to go for 427000 more years of this bullshit. God saves us all

Why does any of that shit matter?

>>22262689
The more you post, the more obvious it becomes that you're choosing beliefs because they're "based," anti-liberal, and whatever else. It's all about setting yourself apart, perhaps even justifying your own disillusionment and feelings of helplessness by blaming it all on a fallen world.

>>22260188
This.
>>22260150
You're reacting to a cultural shift that Vatican II does not justify

>>22262123
>There would be even fewer catholics today if they kept the Latin mass.
The issue is the Church doesn't just do the readings in the vernacular but the prayers can be in Latin. This will be rhe default in a couple decades.

>>22260150
Oh look, more false history from the historically illiterate.

Be the change you want to see. Bitching about it will accomplish nothing

>>22262239
I don't think you're wrong but the liturgy is sacramental and the Eucharist is the Sacrament. Could you view this as potentially spiritual gluttony in that you prefer a certain ritual and that preference could be dogmatic and override love of God?

>>22262749
This is too harsh. The issue is that liberalism is not modernism and neither of these movements in their parts are necessarily inherently atheistic, contrary to blessed St. Pius X's reading of modernity as heresy where each part was wrong entirely, though either in their full form are.

>>22262812
>>22260150
Allow me to offer some much needed correctives:
>The Vatican II revolution was nothing less than a surrender to the precepts of liberalism
The fact that you're reducing the whole event to plain order politics (that is, the kabuki theatre of politics where "liberalism" is a thing in and of itself, rather than the incoherent mashup of values, vices, taboos, and shibboleths of the merchant oligarchy that it is, which oligarchy has been increasingly accruing political power - that is, the ability to inflict their will upon the populace, changing its culture to fit their needs, since, contrary to a common liberal dictum, which is just political camouflage by the oligarchy, culture is in fact downstream from politics, not upstream from it - since the Industrial Revolution) is prime evidence that you're a dupe and an unwitting idiot (I could add ignoramus, but that would be superfluous).

Back in the real world, the second Vatican council, like every single ecumenical council before it, addressed issues specific to its time, carving out a space for the Church within the current environment, as the Church has done since time immemorial. The council surrendered nothing to the "liberal conception" provided by the secular/profane society we find ourselves in, even though some of the bishops in attendance there no doubt desired just that outcome. Instead, it reformulated the same old truths and dogmas of the faith in a language more fitting for the new reality it found itself in. Politics is a function of power, and the Church is nothing else if not a body of cunning politicians - it wouldn't be the oldest surviving institution of the planet otherwise. And this thinking about the matter from a mere secular perspective, without taking into account the fact that the Church is not a human institution, but a Divine one.

__continued___

>>22262862
>The State now no longer had the duty to uphold the true religion, or to work to the Christianisation of society, but was to remain neutral in religious matters.
This is a state of affairs that is not new for the Church. You're pining for a historically contingent state of affairs that has no bearing on the real life or truth and dogma of the faith. Probably because you're a disgusting LARPer, like every trad vermin on the internet, may you lot rot in Hell with the Devil your father - since the Devil is your father, because what you desire is not God, but worldly power and influence. If you want to be free of this curse, repent.

You see, the Church Militant is not the Church Triumphant. Christ's Kingdom is after all NOT of this world. So there was a time, and there might yet be again a time when the Church will be reduced to no power in the world, the faithful in hiding (be it in tombs and catacombs, or in plain sight, retreating to their interior castle of their own hearts). There was also a time, and there might yet again be a time when the Church acquires (for good and bad, God permitting) great temporal powers, as was the case during the High Middle Ages throughout Europe. At the end of the day however, while the Church exists in the world, it is not of the world, and its inherited treasury of merits is not to be measured by the world's standards. Nonetheless, much like it is divine, the Church is also a human institution. As is fitting, since the Church is the Body of Christ, who is the Godhead made man, fully man, fully God. So to his mystical body.

And being a human institution is will behave in accordance with its human nature: acquiring worldly power when it can, defending itself from worldly power when it must. At time commanding, at others in hiding. For good or ill. One thing a historically illiterate "traditionalist" troglodyte like you misses is that the triumphalist Church of the Baroque/post-Reformation wasn't all sunshine, roses, and incense (contrary to the outwardly aesthetics of the period). Much the same is true of the Church in the High Middle Ages, when the grandiosity of the clergy was juxtaposed with its utterly disgusting moral corruption. And that was not new, even at the time. You would learn a thing or two by reading about the Pornocrats of the first millennium. Of course, in order to be "traditionalist" one must necessarily be an intellectually lobotomized romantic. Old good, new bad, and all the bad stuff about the past is just liberal/protestant propaganda. Or something.

Moron.

>>22262719
It's the death pangs of an entire religion and way of thinking that dominated Europe for 2000 or so years (not actually that long and not totally, but still), it is important if you want to understand where we are today.

>>22262919
>The liturgy was democratised and stripped of its ancient grandeur and elitism
None of this happened. It is yet another one of your romantic fictions. The overwhelming majority of masses celebrated before the second Vatican council were anything but grand. In fact, they were just as mediocre as the average NO mass today. Which is only natural. You're mistaking the utterly anachronistic celebrations you might see in Tridentine Mass communities for how things were back then. If you're even doing that. You've probably never been to Mass in your life, if I had to guess. As for the TLM crowd, they're a pretty self-selected bunch, and only a witness to their own personal virtues (like a more fervent piety compared to the average), and vices (naked fogeyism/idiotic romanticism).

> the mass was said in vernacular instead of Latin
There is nothing intrinsically good about Latin. The eastern Churches have been celebrating Mass in the vernacular for centuries, and they have splendid, grand liturgies. Mass was said in Latin in the west because that used to be the vernacular in those regions of the ancient Roman Empire. And it continued as such even after Latin was displaced because it was still the language of the Papal States. The "elitism" you purport is a pretty new, and in fact evil phenomenon, not the ancient practice of the Church.

>the priest faced the congregation instead of the altar.
The priest faces the altar even when mass is not celebrated "ad orientem" you dumbass. He literally can't do it otherwise. What changed was the position of the altar, which was brought closer to the laity. This is yet another utterly inconsequential tidbit that is raged over by morons with no common sense, drunk on too much outrage and romanticism.

>The antisemitic prayers
No such thing. Antisemitism is a 20th century invention, and to ascribe it to the ancient Church is yet another anachronism. The Jews really are perfidious: they lack faith in the true Messiah. However, the Church decided that it would be more prudent to stop pointing this out repeatedly, and try other methods of converting the Jews to the true faith.

>as all the references to Hell, sin, enemies of the Church, and damnation.
In a parallel universe perhaps. Back in the real world, the Church still teaches about all these things.

>>22262974
>The "Popes" since then have tirelessly worked to expunge all that was left of Catholic tradition from their new religion.
Yet more fictional nonsense. You can repeat this claim, still won't make it true.

>They have unanimously condemned the death penalty, though it was always upheld as just.
Once again you're just plain wrong. The Church has NEVER taught that the death penalty is just, with no qualifications, only that IT CAN be just in the appropriate circumstances. What recent popes have done was to merely point out that in our contemporary society, those circumstances are no longer present. If you had bothered to actually read the why and how the death penalty was permitted in the past you would have understood this. Alas, you're stuck at the level of "old good new bad".

> They have worked to de-Catholicise Catholic states
Didn't happen.
>such as Salazaar's Portugal
Oh, thanks for pointing out you're just a dumb rightoid who LARPs as Catholic, I had almost forgotten that. Salazaar's Portugal was a turd world shithole by the way, not the Catholic utopia you romanticize it as.

>John Paul II was the first in 2000 years of history to pray in a synagogue
A mistake indeed. But popes have done much worse things in the past. Like actual murders, or committing the sin of simony,

> and the first to endorse wives working outside of the home.
Also imprudent. Wouldn't be the first Pope to make imprudent statements.

So even your examples of actual lapses are actually just the "same old" failings of the Church. Since once again, even though it is a Divine institution, it is also a human one. Popes are never perfect. This nuance will be lost on you however. You're too much of a zealot/idiot to make any reasonable distinctions.

>In short, Vatican II is a new religion
In short, you're a clueless idiot. And a minion of Satan.

>>22262862
>without taking into account the fact that the Church is not a human institution, but a Divine one.
Should be,
>the Church is not a MERELY human institution

>>22262659
>I know it is but Catholic prelates are supposed to be prepared for this.
And you're supposed to not sin, and yet sin all the time. Shocking state of affairs, innit.

>>22262239
>The traditional Latin mass is elitist, medieval, mystical, esoteric, inaccessible to the modern man
>etc
You're a basket case. Repent and grow out of it.

>>22262264
I can pray the rosary at home. During Mass, which is the PUBLIC WORK of the Church (its Divine Liturgy), I want to celebrate the eucharist in communion with the priest, AS IS FITTING and was the ancient practice of the Church everywhere. What you're advocating for is a post-Reformation aberration. In fact, it's an even newer abomination, since even up to the 18th century Latin was still a sort of lingua franca and the laity could understand what was happening.

If I were pope I'd excommunicate every single "traditionalist" nutjob. You Satanic minions are already one foot outside the Church. Showing you the door would be the charitable thing to do. The prodigal son needs to learn his lesson before he returns home.

>>22262395
>Lots of people around the world cherish times of spiritual introspection and cultivate interiority and personal gnosis on a daily basis.
And you can do that during Eucharistic Adoration or your private devotion just fine. The Divine Liturgy is a very different, public work of the Church. It is fitting for the laity to actively participate in the celebration of the Mass, as was the case everywhere and at all times, except in various places in the last couple of centuries.

>Just because you're a soulless husk of a post-everything hylic materialist
Look in the mirror, you brain dead zealot.

>>22262075
>sedes say the pope is illegitimate
>can't explain who the last legitimate pope was
>sedes say VII is heretical
>can't explain what the actual doctrine being broken by VII is

>>22262940
>It's the death pangs of an entire religion and way of thinking
If you look at the data the Africans and Asians are adopting the torch of Catholicism way faster than the west is abandoning it. Secularist westerners sure love praising the diversity that's about to come biting their ideology in the ass in the next few decades.

>>22262395
>>22263080
There is nothing more ironic than a "traditionalist" -- that is, a mere reactionary modernist per excellence -- calling someone a "soulless husk of a post-everything hylic materialist". Especially after making a thread that was started with outright falsehoods about the Church, and is littered with complaints about inconsequential material superficialities, like whether the Mass is said in Latin or not. Not unexpected. I doubt you even know what the word "materialist" actually means.

You're the only soulless "hylic" here. Good news is you'll grow out of it. Bad news is you'll probably join some other moronic bandwagon. That's the journey with your type. Hopefully sooner or later you'll grow wiser and actually try to live a life of sainthood, rather than vomit your stupidity all over everyone and blaspheming against the Church with your lies and trivialities.

Yet another shitty religious thread with inept history, bogus sociology and comical mythology, only here under the pretense that it is literature because the first post has a picture of a book.

There must be a better site you can take this nonsense, it's barely a step above Harry Potter slash fiction.

>>22260325
Fuck you. It doesn’t matter where they are. The Armenian people have existed longer than your various tribes.

>>22263107
I blame Americans. You fuckers don't read, and for you the world came into being with World War 2. Everything before that might as well really be Harry Potter for all you uncultured swine know.

>>22263107

>>22263103
Are you talking about conversions in Africa and Asia, or is it their birthrate?
I am skeptical about a African dominated church and how long that could actually last, but perhaps you should move the See of Peter to Japan, now that could be interesting (I know it's not the Japanese who are catholic, it's the Philippines).
How do you actually feel about that, those ethnic groups dominating the church?
What I see happening is this, the church in the west becomes increasingly liberal while harbouring on the margins an insular trad core that has to keep breaking off due to more and more things the Vatican does. And the church in third world countries goes on but without much fervour, it's already basically just a cultural thing in latin america.
What do you think will happen though?

>>22263161
>What do you think will happen though?
The exact inverse of what you said. The Church in the west will be slowly invigorated, while Christianity outside Europe and the Anglosphere will be eaten bit by bit by every disease the west will have already abandoned by then, only to re-emerge at a later date under western influence and re-evangelization. Ironically, LARPers like OP are a signal of the future. They're not stable in their beliefs because they're young, but they're a window of sorts into where things are going. The "liberal" Church has no means of reproducing itself. There's a bottom to vice. Look at the Amish. Less and less people are leaving the Amish communities nowadays, compared to the start. The same boiling off is occurring within the Catholic Church as well, except in two directions (with more extreme types going into schism because the Church has been destroyed by "liberalism" or other such nonsense).

Do sedes believe that Vatican II was pastoral or dogmatic?

>>22263261
Sedes are mentally ill. They believe several mutually exclusive things at once.

>>22263256
Another clue to this is the recent The Pope Answers documentary, about several teenagers asking the Pope Francis their often silly (but understandably so) questions. The only genuinely orthodox teen in it was the Spanish girl who grew up in a family that followed the Neocatechumenical way. All the non-Europeans (and especially the South American self proclaimed "feminist") were disasters in the making. Tragic really.

>>22263256
How do you see the church in the west becoming invigorated? Through the trad larpers? It's a poor heritage if that's the case.

>>22263321
>Through the trad larpers?
Definitely not. They're more likely to leave, either through schism (whether by becoming Sede, or Eastern Orthodox etc), or downright apostasy (paganism, atheism, [insert some other contrarian current thing here] etc.)

>How do you see the church in the west becoming invigorated?
Through the practising faithful, who are increasingly immunized against the current anti-Christian culture, neither brainlessly reacting against it (like the reactionary LARPers) nor being cannibalized by it (like it's happening with "liberal" catholics), managing to carve out a different way between these two extremes, moving forward with a new expression of the same unchanging faith. Basically, the same way the Church has survived every other moment of crisis in its past.

>>22263428
>>22263321
Basically, it will be a smaller, but more luminous and stronger Church. Smaller at least for a time. But I am confident we have reached the inflection point. I don't have a rosy picture for the Church outside the west however, because while the raw numbers there are going up, the kind of Christianity that is being cultivated among them leaves a lot to be desired. South America is a good case study of this. I doubt Africa or Asia will end up in a better place, given current trends. The whole non-western world seems really ill-equipped to deal with a very western kind of poison. The west has been poisoning itself for far longer, and in smaller doses, so the Church has had time to build up immunity to such insanity. And on the ground you really do see it, especially in France with which I am the most familiar. The difference between practising Catholics in France and the population at large is immense. On the one hand you have active flourishing, on the other a failed state in the making.

>>22263256
>Look at the Amish
The Amish defection rate is at the highest that it's ever been. The percentage that leave during Rumpschringa is the lowest it's ever been because of the enormous cultural taboo against it (it basically excommunicates your family if you leave during it), but the number of people leaving Amishdom is at the highest that it's ever been. Because the Amish lifestyle is parasitic it has a maximum carrying capacity, and there's only so much land that they can use (due to the nature of their parasitism).
>b-b-but muh woke muh lgbt mu-
They become normal rural White Americans with a headstart on capital accumulation, not green haired trigglypuffs.

>>22263460
>But I am confident we have reached the inflection point
Francis is putting a Tucho in every Dicastery and the next Pope will declare the Ordination of Women and homosexuals as doctrine. If he doesn't, the clergy of Europe (85% of German bishops are part of Die Synodal Weg) will declare a schism and kill Catholicism.

>>22262075
>Sedevacantism has always maintained that the man currently claiming to be the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is actually an antipope
And they do so based on their personal judgement, instead of submitting their will to the man appointed by God to be the interim between mankind and Divinity. You're forced to either admit that the title of Pope is meaningless and your will is above God's, or that everything is in order and sedevacantism is heresy

>>22263680
Caring about this Warhammer shit is at least twice as gay as sucking dick

christian server for traditional catholics, orthodox and lutherans/calvinists: https://discord.gg/u7NTsey3

>>22263703
And when the tradlarp fails, they fall back into ironyceldom.

>>22262075
This is just protestantism with extra steps.

>>22263703
I guarantee you it is important to the broader world. The Catholic world is a force in the world and if it disassembles will have a huge impact. It's the largest religion in the world, there are more Catholics than the rest of Christians combined.
The reason you are so dismissive is because you don't like it, but if it were some huge foreign religion that was on the verge of collapse you would take notice (or you should).

>>22263730
>It's the largest religion in the world
Well, no, if Catholicism is separated from non-Catholic Christianity then Catholicism is the third largest world religion (behind Islam and Hinduism) and is neck-and-neck with non-Catholic Christianity for that position.

>if it disassembles will have a huge impact.
I fucking hope so, the Vatican is the largest importer of nogs and nafris to my state.

>>22263428
You're using the doctrine that "Hell will not prevail against her" as a logical argument. Which it isn't, it's faith. All you're saying is that those who have the true understanding of the faith will come out victorious and the church will be reinvigorated.
But what if you didn't have that assumption? Is this middle way actually tangible, do you see it and can you point at it as a movement.
What I see is a dying generation of boomers that make up most mass attendance in the west, and a trad movement very associated with politics and the internet.
Well now I'm curious so I'll ask this, if you go to church often, is there actually a community you engage with that's living, with young people and so on, or is most of your discourse on the internet?
>>22263460
I think most of what I wrote is relevant to your reply too, except I really only know what's going on here in Canada so maybe it is different in France. And I agree I don't see leadership coming out of third world countries. It's too much, I can just imagine how odd an asian Pope or something would be.

>>22263754
I think the numbers I looked at split Islam in two at least between Shia and Sunni.

>>22263161
>perhaps you should move the See of Peter to Japan, now that could be interesting (I know it's not the Japanese who are catholic, it's the Philippines).
What, I don't see any reason for the Holy See to leave Rome, especially for fucking JAPAN where like 1% at most of the population is Catholic?

I do like the idea of the Japanese Catholics/descendants of the Kakure Christians getting their own official Eastern Catholic Church like the Maronites or the Ukrainians, though. I just don't think there's enough interest in from Japanese Catholics for that to really become a fleshed out thing.

>>22262749
>It's all about setting yourself apart
You got one thing right, at least.
>Romans 12:1-2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.
>John 15:18-19 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
>Corinthians 6:14-15 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

>>22263730
It already collapsed if the crypto-protestant seethevacantists are to be believed. As for the impact, it has an enormous real estate portfolio to dispose of, along with lots of good inventory for the world's museums. Some of the proceeds here can go to the UN or various charities, victims of abuse, etc. If there are any true believers they can join the seethevacantists in having a ROCOR Catholic Church and finally pick their own Pope Denethor. Has anyone written extensively on the logistics and finances of the church? If it does actually fall apart those who've left it already will have a hard time retrieving its treasures.
>>22263779
Muslims are basically half the median age of European Catholics. So its not just quantity it's quality (fertility). The pastor of an overwhelmingly elderly parish is the rearguard of a defeated army.

>>22263779
I don't see the reason to do that, but if we're splitting Christianity up it's only fair to do the same to other religions:

2.4 billion Christians
1.9 billion Muslims
1.2 billion Hindus
0.5 billion Buddhists

Cut that up:


1.5 billion Sunnis
1.1 billion Catholics
0.9 billion Protestants
0.5 billion Shiites
0.6 billion Vaishnavists
0.5 billion Buddhists
0.4 billion Orthodox Christians
0.4 billion non-Vaishnavist/Shaivite Hindus
0.1 billion Theravadins
0.1 billion Mahayana's
0.2 billion Shaivites

There are approximately 1 billion people who are not counted in this figures, and some of these divisions (like cutting up Hinduism) don't really make much sense. Also, I didn't cut up Catholicism or Sunnism, but if you do that you end up with far more nuanced and finely grained distinctions anyways and that defeats the point.

>>22264043
>1.5 billion Sunnis
>1.1 billion Catholics
Huh I skeptically looked this up but you're right. I thought Catholics were bigger than Islam total. Good post.

>>22261140
>reddit spacing
That's not what reddit spacing is, you non-writing retard. Why are you even on /lit/ if you cannot write a single paragraph?

>>22263103
>>can't explain what the actual doctrine being broken by VII is
You have to take the 50,000 foot view and see Vatican II as primarily a historical phenomenon. We could of course go through the various doctrines explicitly taught in the documents of Vatican II and demonstrate how they conflict with previous teachings. This is an easy thing to do, and many have done it. But this sort of analysis only appeals to lower sorts of minds. Only those who, as Christ said, cannot read the signs of the times, who cannot integrate the various bits of scattered information they receive into a coherent whole, only they are impressed by this low-level YouTube apologetics style argumentation.

What was the Vatican II revolution? This question can only be answered by a mind which thinks holistically. A mind which does not regard the men themselves, or even the documents themselves, but whose interest is primarily in WHAT THESE THINGS REPRESENT. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I -- all of these men are unimportant, ultimately speaking. If one of them had never existed another would have taken their place. What is important is the metaphysical-cultural force that created them and propels them forward and inspires every single action they take. That is: the force of Modernity, which is identical to the force of Satan.

Seen from this perspective, it is impossible to regard the Vatican II revolution as anything but a continuation of the various social revolutions that have plagued the West since at least the start of the Protestant rebellion. It is the revolutionising force of Modernity applied to that institution which for so long seemed the only one impervious to it: the Catholic Church. At Vatican II the Church was guillotined, just as Louis XVI had been 200 years earlier. And we -- or at least I and the other Sedevacantists -- are still in bewildered awe over her death. Like some traumatised child convincing himself his beheaded mother can be resuscitated, we rock and sing with the corpse of the Church in our arms, left without a mother, hopeless, madly grinning.

It is only the Sedevacantist who has managed to see this truth and embrace it; all the others have been too blind or too cowardly. The Sedevacantist alone is able to read the signs of the times. The eclipse of the Church has left the world without light, so we light our candles and pray for this affliction to pass.

>>22264244
>we rock and sing with the corpse of the Church in our arms, left without a mother, hopeless, madly grinning.
yes, just like the early christers who believed their rabbi rose from the dead and would come back a second (third) time—the seethevacantist is a true believer

>>22264274
Try speaking without memes.

>>22264547
listen here seethevacantist, if you think the church is going to rise from the dead and establish the holy roman empire of the state of ohio I've got a bridge to sell you in brooklyn, or maybe a cathedral on fifth avenue

>>22264582
You're not responding to who you think you are.

>>22261112
Because liberalism is superior to Christianity just as Christianity was superior to paganism.

Christians are literally nothing but punching bags for liberals now. They have to get on their knees and accept sodomy and all kinds of shit in their churches because liberals demand it of them. No one has done more to humiliate Christians (not even Romans who threw them to lions) than liberals. Liberals have made Christians accept humiliations towards their religion that in the past would have earned you a burning at the stake.

Truly one is awe struck at the superiority of the liberal.

>>22263696
>Anonymous 07/14/23(Fri)16:47:55 No.22263
Not him, but how do you know he's the man appointed by God? You missed the entire point of what he was saying. How do you know that?

>>22264600
christianity was never a political ideology though. it was used politically because it was expedient.

>>22263769
>if you go to church often, is there actually a community you engage with that's living, with young people and so on, or is most of your discourse on the internet?
I go to Mass almost daily and yeah, there are a lot of young people in my community. I know this isn't a universal, and there are parishes full of crippled boomers that are about to croak, but that description isn't a universal either.

>You're using the doctrine that "Hell will not prevail against her" as a logical argument. Which it isn't, it's faith.
I'm using it as a logical assumption. If the faith is true, then the assumption holds. If the faith is not true, than I am hoping in vain. And yes, it's not blind faith. I do see this middle way around me, outside of the rabid trads, which are actually a pretty rare breed IRL. You seem to have lost your faith, if you ever had faith to begin with. Try moving out of whatever geriatric town/community you live in. Maybe that'll give you some encouragement.

>>22263680
>the clergy of Europe (85% of German bishops are part of Die Synodal Weg) will declare a schism and kill Catholicism.
In your dreams Satan.

>Francis is putting a Tucho in every Dicastery
Yeah, and popes used to make their "nephews" (i.e. bastard sons) cardinals and use their papal office to hoard wealth and play politics with various heads of state. The Church is still here. Like I said multiple times ITT: read more history. You stand to gain a lot from it.

>the next Pope will declare the Ordination of Women and homosexuals as doctrine
If he will try, he will surely fail. Or else Christianity is a false religion and the Catholic Church that Jesus founded one giant bimillenarian scam.

>>22263818
>Muslims are basically half the median age of European Catholics. So its not just quantity it's quality (fertility).
You are mistaken about the demographic trends. They may be younger, but after moving over their fertility crashes much harder than with the natives, for the simple reason that they are not adapted to the poison of the west. What happens with muslims and others like them is either they become turbo degenerates who waste their better years, or uber seething incel trads who don't fit in at all. Pretty much the worst you see in the Catholic Church online, except turned up to 11. Once again I know this first hand, from France. It's actually quite a tragic situation. They should have never been here to begin with. They're not adapted to surviving the death culture of the contemporary west.

>>22264244
>We could of course go through the various doctrines explicitly taught in the documents of Vatican II and demonstrate how they conflict with previous teachings.
You couldn't, because they plainly do not conflict with the prior teaching of the Church. Some of the points seething trads cry about were actually taught all the way back in the first centuries of Christendom. Of course, trads don't know shit, because for trads, like most modernists, the world began in the Great Cataclysm of World War Two, and all history prior is just poorly known mythology from another spatiotemporal dimension.

Get your head out your ass.

>>22265459
Very astute anon, I was trying to blend in, and yes I live in a geriatric town, but I was raised within a quite trad homeschooling community and I still have ties to a prominent, traditional though Novus Ordo centered university. I don't want to say where I live but there's catholic media persons I've met and whose children are adjacent to my social circle that you've most likely heard of.
Obviously I'm not saying I've experienced the heights of Catholic culture, but I would assert that I am familiar with most ideas and types of people in north american Catholicism.
I'm too terrified of eternal hell to leave the sacraments, but I no longer have any certainty that this is the one true faith. I'd jokingly call myself an agnostic catholic absurdist.
Thanks for reading my blog.

>>22262862
>>22262919
>>22262974
>>22263006
Thank you for taking the effort to respond to my post. I do wish to acknowledge your effort and perhaps I will provide a response later when I am free. However, in the meantime, you should read this post (>>22264244), which addresses the general point of your argument.

Yep

>>22265556
>However, in the meantime, you should read this post (>>22264244), which addresses the general point of your argument.
I already did. It's nonsense. You're using word salad like "a holistic view of modernism" to prop up a falsehood. There is not even a single point in the Vatican II council that contradicts or goes against prior teaching. Not about the role of the Church in the world, not about ecumenism, not about the Church's relationship to Jews, not about baptism, not about the exclusivity of salvation, not any pet issue that trad LARPers seethe about. Not one. Every single point raised at the second Vatican council is something the Church rightly held as true before then, explicitly for centuries, and implicitly for 2000 years.

You don't know what you're talking about. Which is why you resort to gibberish and waxing pseudo-intellectually on the matter.

>>22265496
A study of history is really very important if you are Catholic in these times. You have this or that person trying to say that it's impossible for there to be bad Popes, that the Pope is always right.

But that's nonsense. What about Alexander VI? What about Stephen VI, who held the fucking Cadaver Synod? What about John XII?

What history actually teaches us is that individual Popes can be bad and the Church goes through periods of crisis. But in the end there is always a restoration. None of us may live to see the restoration and reform of the Church, but perphaps we are beginning to see hints of it.

What is really guaranteed to be eternal is the OFFICE of the Pope, the CHAIR of Saint Peter, the Petrine rock around which all of Christendom rightfully should revolve. That actually DOESN'T fail. It hasn't failed, over 2000 years. The Church of Rome, governed by the successor of Saint Peter, has survived countless things that should have killed it, including a number of very bad individual Popes. But we're stilll here. Christ's promise has not been broken. The gates of Hell have not prevailed. And they will not.

But now is an excellent time to become a saint. Because the Church needs saints, and the current age's crisis is a time to become a saint. Like Saint Dominic, Saint Francis, or Saint Ignatius in the past.

>>22265581
Has there been a significant age crisis before ? that's news to me if it's true.

>>22265543
>I don't want to say where I live but there's catholic media persons I've met and whose children are adjacent to my social circle that you've most likely heard of.
If you mean the Steubenville crowd, I don't like them. Phony milquetoast conservatism mixed with a fake "Catholicism as a brand" attitude. Sanctimonious narcissists and grifters, the lot of them. And being surrounded by their type, I cannot blame you for your cynicism and discouragement. I really do think you should to try to move. At the end of the day, they are victims of their own vices and newfound online success. But if you can help it, don't let their poison get to you.

>>22265597
>Has there been a significant age crisis before ?
lmao, of course. For a period of about 200 years after the turn of the last millenium we had something like 20 antipopes and the most degenerate clergy imaginable. The "lavender mafia" you see nowadays doesn't hold a candle to their corruption and debauchery.

>>22260150
Coomaraswamy was a Perennialist funnily enough, which is not an acceptable belief in Catholicism, not even in post-V2 Catholicism unless you frame it in a very particular way. This is one of the biggest ironies in Perennialism, they're convinced of this great spiritual need to join religions with an "uninterrupted chain of initiatic transmission", usually meaning Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy in practice but also sometimes more conservative varieties of Catholicism. And yet their core belief that all religions are the same on an essential level prevents them from doing this. If you literally cannot become a Muslim or a Christian according to traditional Muslim and Christian standards of orthodoxy then how are you going to access that initiatic tradition? This is why you see some of them, like Guenon, dropping the Perennialism and becoming authentically traditional members of their chosen religion and others, like Schuon, dropping the Guenonian ideas about traditional religions and becoming wild syncretists. There's a fundamental contradiction between "Traditionalism" and actually following any of the major religions in a traditional way.

>>22264043
I fucked my numbers up, it should be 0.4 billion Mahayanans, excuse me.

>>22265523
>>22265523
I broadly agree with you, but: the ordination of women and the tolerance of LGBT are both absolutely innovations. The Vatican has been against the ordination of women for 1700 years, and the Vatican has held that sex is a sin for 1700 years. These two things are bad, they aren't supposed to happen, Jesus himself said that you aren't supposed to do them. They are innovations introduced by outside forces. They're baked into the cake of what Christianity is setup to do in a holistic view that does not regard men or documents themselves but rather what things represent, but they have been explicitly held as bad for a very long time, and they're only being brought up recently as part of the shaking up of the Vatican establishment. Stepping on rakes and failing to achieve anything is part of Christianity so it's okay that there's this conflict, but one side (the Liberals) is being propped up by outside forces against the other (the pedophile old-guard).

The Trads have to answer why the fourth hypostasis of the Trinity can be bent to the will of outside forces, but it is absolutely being bent towards outside forces. But, this is nothing new, this has happened before, and if Die Synodaler Weg doesn't kill the Vatican, it will happen again.

>>22265496
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synodal_Way
Feel free to go compare its membership and support lists to the cardinalate of Europe.

>nephews
Oh, you're actually just a roleplayer, you don't know who Tucho is lmfao.

> Or else Christianity is a false religion and the Catholic Church that Jesus founded one giant bimillenarian scam.
I'm glad that you're coming to your senses!

I never got the Latin only mass thing st John of the Cross a doctor of the Catholic Church was saying that always praying in the same language is an attachment to be abandoned all the way back in the 1500’s it’s definitely not a new idea

catholic and orthodox christian rites and passages are pretty cool
but christianity itself is a fucking mess of a religion
no wonder when it started in the middle of the bumfuck desert with a bunch of tribes fighting over whose god was the strongest
if you take just the new testament, you could almost make a functional and believable religion, but trying to marry the new testament with the jewish fairytales of old is practically impossible
the god of the old testament is not the god of the new testament
the god who fucked with people just because he could, promised people wealth and riches, and the ability to murder their enemies, blessed and cursed people
he is not the same god as in the new testament, and there's simply too many holes in the story to make christianity as a whole believable.

>>22265744
>the ordination of women and the tolerance of LGBT are both absolutely innovations
The Church does not ordain women and does not bless homosexual unions. What some German schismatics-to-be are up to is a sin that will fall on their own heads alone, not the whole Church.

>Oh, you're actually just a roleplayer, you don't know who Tucho is lmfao.
My point seems to have went way over your head, which is that this is not the first time a pope raises shitty people to the rank of cardinal.

>I'm glad that you're coming to your senses!
I was always sane, if a bit cranky due to stress at work.

>>22265829
Marcionism is exactly that belief, and similar beliefs are found in gnostic texts but Marcion was a big deal, lots of followers in the 100s AD.
Personally I can't have much love for a God who designs the world in such a way that we must follow legalistic teachings or we go to hell, but I find the idea of a Christ being sent from a higher and mysterious love with the mission to fix this broken world appealing. Marcion saw the old testament as obviously relevant to the religion, but it was to be understood as the broken and demiurgic domination.

>>22260150
Religion of cucks, religion of swallowers, religion of condemning clans, religion of women without families, beggars, whores, sodomite lovers, religion of universalists and race mixers, religion of a dead mystic, religion of cope, of apocalyptic cope, religion of hell and silent endurance, religion of carnal paradise, religion of repressed humanity, religion of castated warriors, religion of worshipping a foreing god, religion that hates vigour, religion of superstition and hypocrisy, religion of mute theologians and shouting bafoons, religion of taxation and collections, religion of a living idol, religion that loves and condemns human sacrifice, religion with artificial honor, religion of kidnapped popes, religion of lying about own scripture, religion of fiction and speculation.

What's the matter, christian traditionalists? You never had a chance. You were so happy to hear about how your church destroyed the society. You condemned clans but now you cry out for the nuclear family. You made women count as men, but you're enraged when they work. You crowned the emperors, but the new rulers are too uncough for you. You kept forgiving and sheltering anything disgusting for centuries but now your temples are not for pederasts anymore. You believed in witches and now can't even accept the dogma of scientism. You could twist your god however you wanted but none can make him a liberal.

>>22265598
I've never actually been to Steubenville or anything so I don't want to judge them, but that weird Midwest Catholic culture seems very foreign and stifling to me. They look and act like Mormons.

I've been interested in Eastern Catholicism as of late; even if it's harder to find I feel like when you engage with it you're actually engaging with a real community and not just a large-scale production or corporatized bureaucracy like the American RCC feels like. But both you and >>22265543 seem authentic in what you've experienced moreso than sede larpers like OP so I'm not going to tell you how to experience your own journey.

>>22265933
Oh no, a pagan larper? Go away now. You're even worse than the trads. Orders of magnitude more historically illiterate and deluded.

>>22265933
So paganism was destroyed by a bunch of cowards, cucks, degenerates and weaklings? Wow, it must have been even less vigorous then, guess it deserved to die. Might makes right right?

>>22265832
>The Church does not ordain women and does not bless homosexual unions.
Yet.

>>22266041
>>22266058
But I thought Paganism was alive and well and we're living under the tyranny of it?

>>22266160
>Yet.
If Christianity is a true religion and the claims of the Catholic Church to being the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ himself founded are right, it never will.

>>22266170
Bless your heart. You thought wrong. Maybe you should take your pills?

>>22266177
How do you explain the Church making radical doctrinal shifts in the past?

>>22265581
>But now is an excellent time to become a saint. Because the Church needs saints, and the current age's crisis is a time to become a saint. Like Saint Dominic, Saint Francis, or Saint Ignatius in the past.
Powerful words, and somehow, you've just inspired me to 'become a saint'. That feels incredibly off base, however, to go out of my way and intentionally aim to become a saint. Well, I'm not even sure how I'd start. I suppose I'll just have to pray that God will take away my unbelief, to start with. I feel such a strong draw to the church, to theology, to history, and so on, yet there's something that prevents me from wholly grabbing onto faith, and of course, as I'm struggling to grab on to faith, I'm certainly not producing good works.

>>22266177
And when it turns out that it's not because "Christianity" is 1,700 years of bandaids on a pack of lies, will you still be defending the Vatican then?

You don't have to answer me, but you should think long and hard about this. The Vatican has done far greater 180s before, do you respect yourself and your people enough to stop being abused like this?

>>22266180
What radical doctrine shift do you speak of? I grant you no such radical changes. The Catholic faith is still the same faith of the apostles, albeit developed over the course of two millennia. Any changes that have occurred are accidental (in the Aristotelian sense) to it, not radical: the Church has added specificity and clarification on matters that used to be less epistemically clear in the past, or made explicit things which were merely implied by past explicit statements (overt icon veneration being an example of this, as part of the general cult of the saints). Beyond that, what Christ has taught, we believe, without alteration, subtraction, or addition.

>>22266191
>The Vatican has done far greater 180s before
I grant you no such nonsense.

>And when it turns out that it's not because "Christianity" is 1,700 years of bandaids on a pack of lies, will you still be defending the Vatican then?
I'm not a gullible fool, so if it turned out that the Church is wrong, I'll obviously stop being a Christian.

>>22266199
I wish you the best, then.

>>22265523
>>22265573
It is impossible to see what I am saying until you take the holistic view. As long as you keep calling it “word salad” and insist on arguing over the technicalities of the Vatican II documents, you will never attain enlightenment.

The normie Catholic has a particular algorithm which he runs whenever he wishes to defend his Vatican II Church. He either radically reinterprets the new to fit with the old, or the old to fit with the new; arguing always based on technicalities and secondary definitions of words. He wishes to establish by this means not the full exoneration of his Church beyond any doubt, but the mere possibility of their innocence, no matter how far-fetched it may be. Failing that, he resorts to his get out of jail free card: “it was just imprudence! Not infallible!”

Thus for example when we Sedevacantists object that the Vatican II declaration on religious liberty is pretty much a word-for-word contradiction with what the Popes had taught about the matter in the past, the normie Catholic either twists the meaning of the document to the point where “religious liberty” only means “Catholic liberty”, or else states that the old Popes were not speaking infallibly and have been superseded by the new.

Or, to take a more recent example: the current Pope of the Vatican II religion recently venerated a pagan idol in the gardens of the Vatican. To defend this, the normie Catholics insisted that he thought it was a representation of the Virgin Mary. A spurious tale, no doubt, but anything was acceptable to soothe their consciences.

It is only those who take the holistic view, who read the signs of the times, that are able to transcend this pedantic bickering. Why was the mass changed? Why have the Popes suddenly started praying in mosques and synagogues? Why do they praise Luther? Why are they feminists? Why does their doctrine just “feel” different in every way?

Those who look at these events as individuated, decontextualised happenings will never be able to understand. Only the mind which is able to integrate all this information into a coherent whole can read the signs of the times. The perceptive mind which can go to the new mass and immediately see that it symbolises a democratic, liberal spirit, despite all the confusion raised by its defenders. The mind which sees Vatican II as the expression of the revolutionary spirit of modernity, the same spirit which he perceives everywhere around him, whose symbols he can instantly recognise without need for an argument. Only he will see.

And, by the way, the architects of the revolution, such as Ratzinger, are smarter than you. They admit that the project of Vatican II was a reconciliation with the liberal world ushered in by the French Revolution. Ratzinger even called it the “counter-Syllabus”, referring to Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum. There is no continuity here: they are expressions of entirely different epochs, different spirits.

>>22261140
I will personally cave your head in if I ever see you

>>22265404
True Christianity isn’t political (it’s kingdom is not of this world) but it can be used politically as monarchists used it to solidify their power in the Middle Ages and leftists/socialists like to use it sometimes because Jesus said something about helping the poor.

But Christianity doesn’t completely align with any kind of modern politics. It’s too conservative for leftists/liberals and too leftist for conservatives.

Christianity is politically homeless.

>>22266764
Completely wrong. True Christianity is as right wing as you can be. Read pic related. The Popes condemned modern errors such as:
>Feminism
>Free love
>Contraception
>Co-education
>religious liberty
>the separation of Church and State
>freedom of speech
>freedom of the press
>the idea that the State derives its legitimacy from the swaying opinion of the people
>socialism
>communism
>liberalism
>freemasonry
>materialism
>excessive rationalism
>etc. etc. etc.

I am always so shocked when people say things like this. The left-wing movements from the French Revolution onwards have been at bloody war with the Church, and the Church has resisted them with every ounce of its strength. There has never been a more reactionary, more right-wing force than the Catholic Church.

(Naturally I am talking about the Catholic Church before Vatican II, since Vatican II performed the same revolution in the Church that the left-wingers had performed in society previously.)

>>22266854
Define "right wing"

>>22266058
>So paganism was destroyed by a bunch of cowards, cucks, degenerates and weaklings?
Yes, just like your religion is now a thing for fat lesbians to mock while dressed as preachers. And don't tell me it's protestants, soon the pope will be an obese black woman. And the only achievement left of the christ will be your right to claim that you were the bigger liars and subverters then the entire nation of Israel.

>>22262376
Gnosticism (which is what you're doing) is explicitly heretical; you will tear Hell right open when you die, and I will be in Heaven on high, laughing at your righteous misery.

>>22266179
Fake Christian. You're supposed to pretend to be oppressed because the Clintons are Babylonian sorcerer-kings of Marduk or something.

Is this bait?
>He either radically reinterprets the new to fit with the old, or the old to fit with the new
You haven't shown that the old and new don't fit. Your opponent gave examples to support his argument, you're just blabbering on about nothing.

>>22266969
Meant for
>>22266506

>>22266969
>>22266973
My post was meant for people who are already thoroughly acquainted with the issue. It is a higher level analysis. If you want to know about the rupture between the Catholic Church and the Vatican II new religion, read Popes Against the Modern Errors as a starter and compare it to what the Vatican II Church teaches

>>22267013
>It is a higher level analysis.
You're full of shit.

>>22267013
But the Catholic Church teaches that there was no rupture. Why am I supposed to trust some random internet heretic over the one holy apostolic mother church founded by the apostles?

Daily reminder there was no papal supremacy in the early church, papal supremacy was a development of the 9th-11th century. Catholics, trads and sedes are all wrong and arguing with each other on retarded foundations.

>>22266506
This is yet more balderdash. You're so full of shit I can smell your rancid feces through the monitor.

> He either radically reinterprets the new to fit with the old, or the old to fit with the new; arguing always based on technicalities and secondary definitions of words.
Says who? You? Examples of such radical reinterpretation of either? What technicalities? What secondary definitions of words? By the plain meaning of what was written in the acts of the second Vatican council, it is in perfect continuity with prior teaching. No special exegesis required.

>Failing that, he resorts to his get out of jail free card: “it was just imprudence! Not infallible!”
What? I called imprudent the behaviour of a Pope, in particular certain of JPIIs theological writings. Those are NOT part of the second Vatican council, but his mere theological opinion as a private theologian. John Paul II could, as any member of the clergy, speak both in personal capacity, but also in formal/official capacity. And yes, not every pronouncement made by a Pope is automatically infallible. This is common sense, except in the deranged minds of people like you, who are all too eager to fight windmills.

>Vatican II declaration on religious liberty
A matter of the interaction between canon and secular law, not doctrine, and definitely not dogma. Past pronouncements against certain notions of religious liberty were made in the context of the existence of polities where there was no separation of Church and state, and canonical law had formal binding and enforceable jurisdiction on all the citizens faithful (that is, members of the Church), AND YET, even during those times religious liberty was a recognized right, since the Church has ALWAYS condemned forced conversions as abusive and intrinsically immoral, the relationship of the Church with Jews being a notable example of this. Here, straight from Dignitatis humanae:

>Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society.
>Religious freedom, [...] has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society.
This is something the Church has always taught. The relevant distinction, when nutjobs misinterpret past magisterial statement as contrary to the above, were highly contextual, always about _Catholic Christians, as subjects to a formally Catholic king, in a thoroughly Catholic polity, where canon law and secular law had equal legal weight for the populace, being enforced either directly by organs of the Church, or organs of the king/state_. Catholic Christians are still very much BOUND by their faith. We are not free to willy nilly disobey the Church or denigrate its teaching, under the guise that we are, supposedly "religiously free". Once again, you (people like you) are the ones who obfuscate the plain meanings of words.

__continued__

>>22266506
>>22267135
>the current Pope of the Vatican II religion recently venerated a pagan idol in the gardens of the Vatican.
This quite simply never happened, except in the deranged minds of the mentally ill. The pope venerated the most holy Virgin Mary, the Theotokos. We have had sacred art since time immemorial. The Church has also, throughout time, sought to enculturate the faith to the manners and needs of various local populations. The fact that the statuette of the Virgin was sculpted in a south-American style does not make it an idol, any more than a statuette of the Virgin done in the style of greco-roman art makes her a Greek or Roman goddess.

You can claim the contrary, but that would merely be you spewing your lies, because you're full of shit.

>Only the mind which is able to integrate all this information into a coherent whole can read the signs of the times.
You're a self-deluded clown.

>It is only those who take the holistic view, who read the signs of the times, that are able to transcend this pedantic bickering
Emphatically ironic statement.

>>22267135
>>22267163
>>22266506
So, to conclude, your "holistic" view amounts to

>akshually, what the Church teaches is a giant lie because I say so.
So, for example, "religious liberty" does not mean what the Church says it means in its own magisterial documents, by its own plainly written definitions, but what you, in your mentally ill mind, divine as "the real, hidden meaning" that only someone as enlightened as you can "holistically" discern.

You are deranged. Literally. A self-deluded clown.
That, or just a troll.

>>22267131
>papal supremacy was a development of the 9th-11th century
Pope Agatho sends his regards,

>>22267131
This is like saying, "Daily reminder there was no trinity before the 4th century. The concept of the trinity came from the council of Nicaea." It only reveals your ignorance of church history and how the church operates. You're arguing no differently from an atheist who claims that Constantine "created the Bible", or "created Jesus".

>>22266854
>(Naturally I am talking about the Catholic Church before Vatican II, since Vatican II performed the same revolution in the Church that the left-wingers had performed in society previously.)
Oh look, another clueless, gullible reactionary. Are you the same moron as OP, or some other imbecile?

>>22267182
>>22267135
Dignitatis humanae isn't even a long document.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Here, another excerpt:
>14. In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.
>In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35)


Maybe I should quote this part one more time:

>In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.

B-B-BUT MUH RADICAL REINTERPRETATIUN.

Moron.

>>22267243
>In human society and in the face of government the Church claims freedom for herself in her character as a spiritual authority, established by Christ the Lord, upon which there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going out into the whole world and preaching the Gospel to every creature.(32) The Church also claims freedom for herself in her character as a society of men who have the right to live in society in accordance with the precepts of the Christian faith.(33)
Oh wow, yet another reiteration of the same truth that the Church has maintained since time immemorial? No, no, it must AKSHUALLY be a RADICAL REINTERPRETATION.

Such is your brain on sedevacantism and other kinds of tradLARP mental illness. Quite sad.

>>22260150
As an ex-hindu I am starting to get the feeling that protestanism was just one step towards atheism. Like look at this faggot>>22261140

>>22267265
>10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7)
What are the references for this claim?

>Divinarum Institutionum
>4th century
>Saint Augustine
>5th century
>Council of Toledo IV
>7th century
>Pope Innocent III
>12th century

If only you tradLARPers could read... but I'm sure it's all just some kind of linguistic illusion, and the Church was akshually always pro coerced conversions.. and Vatican II is a most RADICAL REINTERPRETATION of this certain fact into its exact opposite.

Not. Anyway, I think I'll stop now. I think I've amply demonstrated that you're full of it. Up to your neck in shit.

>>22263107
We need a /rel/ religion board. /lit/ and /his/ are the closet alternatives, but threads quickly get derailed into /pol/ and /x/ tier content respectively.

>>22267135
>>22267182
>>22267163
I was going to read and respond to this point by point, until I read you trying to say that Pachamama was actually Mary. You are indeed exactly the type of normie Catholic I spoke of in my post. Like a lawyer, you wish to get your man off on a technicality, or produce in the jury the conviction that there is a slight possibility, however, remote, that your man is innocent, even though you don't even believe it yourself.

Francis is not innocent; he knew it was Pachamama; he referred to it as Pachamama in the statement he put out after a traditionalist threw it into the Tiber. Not only that, but he has participated in Native American pagan ceremonies recently, bowing his head as the voodoo priest called upon "the mother spirit".

But you have drawn me into a pedantic discussion of these particulars, which I said from the outset I am trying to avoid. I want a holistic view, which analyses the general trend rather than particular instances. This is the difference between the Sedevacantist and the normie Catholic: the Sedevacantist thinks holistically like a prophet, the normie Catholic thinks like a lawyer.

What if I’m redpilled about the ills of modernity and desire a more traditionalist Catholicism but I’m also not retarded enough to be a sedevacantist?

>>22267337
>the Sedevacantist thinks holistically like a prophet
Kindly, just go back to >>>/x/

>>22267354
>>22267337
Also, Francis is a really shitty pope but he wouldn't be the first shitty pope we had. I already pointed this out several times. Still, however shitty he is, that was not an idol, but the Holy Virgin Mary.

That he called it "Pachamama" afterwards was only because he was paraphrasing you mentally ill people, and your seething REE sessions.

>"the so-called Pachamama"
^ what he actually said. So keep proving just how full of shit you are, seething sede retard.

>>22267350
Look for a good Catholic community. Not online. Your local parish might be more "redpilled" (cringe term by the way, it's not 2012 anymore) than you realize.

>>22267013
>tfw to intelligent to provide doctrinal argument beyond "it's not based and tradpilled enough"

>>22267131
Reminder that if you're Orthodox you have to accept that Rome is the rightful preeminent center of the Christian hierarchy.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenna_Document

>>22267459
Reminder that Orthodox is a heresy and they're all gonna fry in hell.

>>22267376
You are lying to yourself. It's tragic. I know why. You want to believe because the alternative is so monstrous. Yet today the hard path is the path of truth. From your response, I see that you are not yet able to think holistically; until you do, you will not grasp enlightenment. Until, like John of Patmos, you view various characters and events of history primarily as symbols and not individuals, you will not see. For Francis the man, or John Paul II the man, or any of the others are all unimportant. If they died or recanted another would take their place. What is important is the force which propels them, inspires them, and created them. That is: the revolutionary force of Modernity, which is the force of Satan. They are but instantiations of this principle.

>>22267337
>there can be no possible representation of Mary other than "painted stucco statue of white woman wearing blue"
I think the Pachamama shit was a mistake and so did Francis that he was a little too cavalier in addressing, but even saying he "venerated it" reeks of Protestant-style "worshiping statues" rhetoric.

>>22267187
The same Agatho who accepted an ecumenical council that decreed Pope Honorius taught heresy ex cathedra? Which is devastating for the doctrinal innovation of Vatican I

>>22267204
You're arguing no differently from an atheist who claims the Trinity isn't in scripture or the Church Fathers. The Trinity is in both. Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not. They are a Medieval innovation that was always condemned by the rest of the church. The Trinity was not.

>>22267459
Papal primacy is not papal supremacy. The bishop of Rome as first in honor has always been accepted by Orthodox tradition. That does not give him the sole right to promulgate doctrine infallibly and universal power over every other bishop in the church.

>>22267350
If you want tradition, and reject the current pope, but are not a sede, look into the Orthodox church.

>>22267475
Exactly. Men are incarnations of forms, mere vessels for the propagation of information and ideas. Human action probably relates to divine will to some degree but I don't have sufficient spiritual insight to assess how it might be the case.

>>22267475
I will simply reiterate my invitation for you to go back to >>>/x/
You likely also need to go to confession, if not straight up go through an exorcism. Oh wait, you nutjobs don't believe there are any valid priests who can hear confessions anymore.
I'd like to pray for you but I'm too angry to do it. You're pretty much blaspheming against the Holy Spirit at this point, claiming the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church, that the Church is now a tool of modernity, and by extension a tool of Satan. So Christ is a liar, and his Church works through the power of the Devil, according to you. May you reap your just rewards and burn forever in the fires of Hell.

>>22267521
>decreed Pope Honorius taught heresy ex cathedra
That's not what the council decreed. The council decreed that Honorius' letters were heretical, but those letters were never meant to bind the faithful, therefore not ex cathedra.

>You're arguing no differently from an atheist who claims the Trinity isn't in scripture or the Church Fathers.
Away with you crypto-protestant heretic. It's obvious you're some fundie who converted to ortodoxy but has yet to disabuse himself of the sola scriptura nonsense.

>Papal primacy is not papal supremacy. T
A veritable distinction without a difference.

>The bishop of Rome as first in honor has always been accepted by Orthodox tradition.
The orthodox no longer have a tradition. They're just anti-catholics, like all the other protestant heretics. Your sole tradition now is "whatever Rome does, except the opposite".

>>22267350
Take up your cross. Did you know that you can offer even the smallest trial to God as a sacrifice for the salvation of others or as penance for your own sins, uniting thus with our Lord on the cross? It's a very beautiful thing to do, and makes sweet what could often taste bitter.

>>22267475
>>22267530
Not the one either of you are talking to, but wishing for anyone to burn in Hell isn't a good thing. I have absolute faith that God will exert His will and judgement in a perfect and absolute fashion. There is no need to wish for anyone to suffer eternal damnation. I understand your anger that stems from discord and hatred of other worldviews. However we should strive to spread divine love and understanding beyond dogmatic disagreements. I am praying for both of you.

>>22267473
Daily reminder that Rome's own doctrinal teaching is that Orthodox sacraments are efficacious, and Vatican II teaches there can be salvation outside of communion with Rome.

>>22267550
>That's not what the council decreed. The council decreed that Honorius' letters were heretical, but those letters were never meant to bind the faithful, therefore not ex cathedra.
The council condemned Honorius for teaching Christological heresy along with other heretics. Read the council if you want, and read Honorius letters. Honorius intended to bind the faithful to Monothelitism. That was the entire point of his heretical intervention.

>Away with you crypto-protestant heretic. It's obvious you're some fundie who converted to ortodoxy but has yet to disabuse himself of the sola scriptura nonsense.
Kek, someone who doesn't think the Trinity can be found in either scripture or church tradition is calling me a heretic. This type of Catholic apologetics is indistinguishable from atheist scholarship: "we have to blindly follow the pope promulgating dogma then because we can't believe in Christianity from scripture and tradition". It's just radical atheist skepticism.

>A veritable distinction without a difference.
Well no, this is a basic distinction everyone makes in ordinary life. Have you ever sat in a meeting which one individual chairs? Just because one individual is chairman doesn't give them right to override the entire rest of the meeting and decide what happens by fiat.

>The orthodox no longer have a tradition. They're just anti-catholics, like all the other protestant heretics. Your sole tradition now is "whatever Rome does, except the opposite".
Yeah, that's why the Orthodox church have celebrated the same Divine Liturgy from the 4th century, while Catholics invented a new one in the 1960s because their liturgy needed "updating" according to the magisterium. It's the Orthodox who don't have a tradition, Rome does!!

This is the retardedness of tradcaths. They think Christianity is false without a magic supreme and infallible pope, and at the same time want to reject the authority of the pope for teaching heresy. Maybe he was never supreme or infallible in the first place?

>>22267521
>>22267691
Who is claiming that the Trinity can't be found in scripture or church tradition? I'm certainly not. You're arguing a point no one made.

>>22267723
This guy >>22267204
I pointed out that papal supremacy was a Medieval innovation not found in scripture or the fathers.
Anon compared the development of papal supremacy to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity
I replied the Trinity can be found in both scripture and tradition, and papal supremacy can't
Anon then accused me of "sola scriptura"

Anon seems to think that patristic consensus, the consensus of the universal church in ecumenical councils, and scripture interpreted in light of the above, are insufficient to prove the Trinity.

>COOMaraswamy

>>22267337
Not to intrude, but "Pachamama is Mary" is what's keeping Catholicism in Peru alive. If the Vatican makes a move against it they'll just jump to Evangelical Protestantism.

>>22267131
So how do Orthos get around the Russian Patriarch and the Greek Patriarch claiming to be the actual head of the universal church? Or is there some pilpul about how the "spiritual church" is universal but the "temporal church" is not, or something like that?

>>22267800
>So how do Orthos get around the Russian Patriarch and the Greek Patriarch claiming to be the actual head of the universal church?
I'm not sure how this is a rejoinder to the historical fact that papal supremacy is a Medieval innovation. But no, both sides accept the primus inter pares of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the issue is one of jurisdiction over Ukraine. There were many temporary schisms in the early church, and many schisms between and within the Roman church, so again I'm not sure the point being made. Papal supremacy is not traditional and has never been accepted by the whole church, simply a fact. If you think it's good for other reasons go ahead, but don't claim to follow tradition if you do.

>>22267691
>The council condemned Honorius for teaching Christological heresy along with other heretics. Read the council if you want, and read Honorius letters. Honorius intended to bind the faithful to Monothelitism. That was the entire point of his heretical intervention.
That's not what ex cathedra means though.

>>22267881
>both sides accept the primus inter pares of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the issue is one of jurisdiction over Ukraine
if they accepted it there would be no issue lmao

>Rama Coom

>>22267997
>the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops) speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church
Was Honorius Pope?
Yes
Was he discharging his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority?
Yes
Was he defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals?
Yes
Was it to be held by the whole church?
Yes
Honorius was speaking ex cathedra. Speaking heresy ex cathedra.

Ok, what pre Vatican II cathecism I must to read?

>>22267800
>If the Vatican makes a move against it they'll just jump to Evangelical Protestantism.
But do you think Evangelical Protestantism will allow "Pachamama is Mary"?
It just doesn't make sense.

>>22268054
>what pre Vatican II cathecism I must to read?
Read Aquinas, I suppose.

>>22268046
"Pope writes something" is not automatically "definitive dogmatic statement"; since the defining of what constitutes Ex Cathedra in the 19th century it has only ever been invoked twice.

>>22267881
>whoever calls himself universal bishop... is [bad]
The Russian Orthodox Patriarch claims that he is the universal bishop and that Christians have to do what he says. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch claims that he is the universal bishop and that Christians have to do what he says. Ignoring that their claims are competing, how do their adherents get around this?

As in, how do the followers of these two Orthodox Bishops simultaneously hold that the Roman Patriarch is bad for claiming to be the universal bishop while the two aforementioned Orthodox Patriarchs are good for claiming to be the universal bishop?

>>22260150
*destroys catholicism forever*
>nothen personnel kids

>>22260150
*destroys catholicism forever*
>nothen personnel kids

>>22268087
>"Pope writes something" is not automatically "definitive dogmatic statement"
"Pope writes something", i.e. a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, is identical to the Tome of Pope Leo which defined Chalcedonian doctrine according to papal claims. Honorius' letter was attempting the exact same thing, just this time unlike Leo his teaching was rejected as heresy by the Church.

>since the defining of what constitutes Ex Cathedra in the 19th century it has only ever been invoked twice.
If one needs an explicit invocation of papal infallibility for a statement to be infallible, you are admitting the pope's ability to speak infallibly was invented in the 19th century, because papal infallibility has never been explicitly invoked before Vatican I. This is not a valid escape hatch for Honorius teaching heresy.

>>22268090
>The Russian Orthodox Patriarch claims that he is the universal bishop and that Christians have to do what he says. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch claims that he is the universal bishop and that Christians have to do what he says.
No they don't. Show me where they have ever claimed this.

>>22268054
Roman Catechism (published during Council of Trent)

>>22267530
I know your anger and rejoice at it. It argues your goodwill. But your charge is false. I do not slander the Church; I hold fast to the Church. The encyclicals of the great Popes from the French Revolution until the Vatican II Revolution still delight my heart, and give hope to my soul. Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII. It must have been providential that such a line-up of great men resided in the Pontificate until the Vatican II revolution, since their unambiguous opposition to the spirit of Modernity deprives anyone of the right to claim continuity between them and their pretended successors.

>>22268151
>Show me where they have ever claimed this.
It's literally in the name "Orthodox Catholic Church". That's what "Catholic" means: universal. By definition, the head of the church is the spiritual head of the church. That means that he's top dog, the universal bishop. The title "Ecumenical" in "Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως" literally means "the world", his title is literally the "Global father-leader ruling from Constantinople". While the title "Пaтpиapх Mocкoвcкий и вceя Pycи" only implies that the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is the supreme bishop ruling from Moscow of all Russias, he has explicitly declared (so called) Christians outside of his jurisdiction as being excommunicated (including the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and all of those who follow him, alongside every single other Orthodox denomination except that of Serbia and Belarus).

So, what exactly are these two guys doing that the Pope isn't? They're both claiming that they get to decide how Christianity works for literally everyone else on the planet.

>>22268203
>So, what exactly are these two guys doing that the Pope isn't?
What? Are you seriously trying to argue Orthodox and Roman ecclesiology are the same? This is retarded. Not even Roman apologists think this. Just google "autocephaly" if you're confused.

"Ecumenical Patriarch" is a title of honor to the Patriarch of Constantinople as he is first-among-equals, the father (patriarch) of the whole church . As an adult I love and honor my father, and will ask for his guidance in matters and take his advice seriously, and in family matters we look to his authority, but he no longer rules over me in my own home as when I was a child (and as the Pope does the Roman church). This is Orthodox ecclesiology and the same honor that was given to the Bishop of Rome in the early church.

The Ecumenical Patriarch cannot appoint and fire bishops at will throughout the church. The Pope can.
The Ecumenical Patriarch cannot legislate canon law for the entire church. The Pope can.
The Ecumenical Patriarch cannot judge all disputes throughout the church. The Pope can.
The Ecumenical Patriarch cannot enact church-wide liturgical reform at will. The Pope can.
The Ecumenical Patriarch cannot infallibly declare new dogma. The Pope can.

This is really basic stuff. The Pope as an individual is a virtual dictator of the Roman church, especially since Vatican I. This is historically unprecedented and found nowhere in church tradition, either of the early church or the contemporary Orthodox church.

>>22263728
The Vatican II church is Protestantism, correct

>>22260188
Why do sedevacantists even believe that vatican 1 was the real church? If jesus lets the church die or whatever then you have no reason to assume he established it in the first place. The whole thing is just so obviously tradlarper cope. You might as well become one if the million protestant sects trying to restore “real” christianity.

>>22268809
seethevacantists think the pope and the catholic church are memes, and that their reading of scripture is authoritative, so which is it, are they protestants... orthodox... muslims? couldn't be catholic

>>22267691
The council did condemn Honorius as a heretic but the idea that his private letters to a patriarch were intended to be binding on the faithful is plainly ridiculous, something only a clueless orthodox grasping at straws would pull out of his own ass just to excuse the sin of schism.

Also, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is divinely revealed and part of sacred tradition, so now you're straight up putting words in other people's mouths with your lies. It isn't directly taught in Scripture however.

And it seems you're clueless about your own tradition. The various EO liturgies have in fact changed over time. You're just pushing a pious myth that is probably false. Not the first time you lot do that. Such are the labours of schismatics.

You have a lot to learn, zoomer.

>>22267800
The orthodox are pretty much protestants in denial at this point much like Anglicans. The only difference is they still have valid sacraments for now.

>>22260150
I don't have a horse in this race, but I've always thought that the separation of church and state all but guarantees the irrelevance of religion--reduces it to the level of a mere hobby, and drains it of all risk. Basically religions today are like different outlets at a mall, each one acceprd his proper place within the mall

>>22268151
Like most prtholarping converts (,most likely from evangelical rotestantism, you reek of it) you have no clue what you're talking about. Neither about the Catholic Church, or your own church in schism. Typical overzealous prot. You have rendered your tradition into a joke on par with the Lutherans, lmao

Imagine thinking and baldly claiming that a private letter that no one other than the recipient knew the contents of except decades later was intended to be binding on all the faithful. This is the kind of reaching pseudo-arguments you have to resort to just to stay a Protestant. But can I really blame you? You were probably indoctrinated with anti-catholic propaganda your whole life, typical for a Protestant. Why would you discard that baggage when jumping over to LARPing as an orthodox?

>>22269119
A pious myth that is PROVABLY false, damn this autocorrect feature. The EO liturgies have went through many reforms over the centuries, and the same happened to the Roman rite PRIOR to the Novus Ordo. Once again, all you lot demonstrate is your ignorance.

>>22267723
You can only discern the Holy Trinity in Scripture if you read it in light of Sacred Tradition, as the fathers taught us to read scripture. Scripture alone won't give you the doctrine of the Trinity because it isn't plainly taught in Scripture, not even the New Testament. There are only two kinds of people who claim it is taught in Scripture, and both kinds are ignorant troglodytes:

1. Crypto-protestants who still have lingering attachments to the heresy of sola scriptura, and are eager to reintroduce their heresy into the life of the Church by way of other, obscure means
2. Zealot orthodox who deny the reality of doctrinal development, so they are pushed into a corner and have to falsely claim that actually, every doctrine was word for word taught the same at all times, which is why they have to resort to ridiculous claims like "Moses knew about the Holy Trinity" when it was a truth only revealed by Christ himself.

Same old, same old. Heresy and schism can only be propped up by falsehoods.

>>22268196
You're just a protestant who picks and chooses what he believes. You do not hold fast to the Church, you denigrate it and blaspheme against the Holy Spirit which guides her. You're no different than the Jews in the time of Jesus who claimed that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

>28 Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme:
>29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.
>30 Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.

>>22268151
>"Pope writes something", i.e. a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, is identical to the Tome of Pope Leo
If by that you mean that Leo's Tome wasn't an ex cathedra statement intended to be binding on all the faithful, then you're right. Leo wrote that letter to reinstate a wrongly deposed and excommunicated bishop. It was later used during the council as an example of the Orthodox (that is, Catholic, not eastern orthodox) position with respect to Christology, but the letter's primary purpose was a matter of ecclesial jurisprudence and canon law, the doctrinal arguments within being ancillary to that purpose, not the main thrust of it.

>If one needs an explicit invocation of papal infallibility for a statement to be infallible,
No such thing is required. What is required is vehemence and a clear intent to bind all the faithful to something. Private letters simply do not fit the bill, be they Honorius' or Leo's. The prototypical example of an infallible ex cathedra declaration are for example the ratifications of the ecumenical councils by the pope. I know you orthodox engage in mental gymnastics to deny this, but what makes a council ecumenical is whether a pope ratifies it as such.

>>22268151
A private letter between clerics =/= ex cathedra doctrinal statement, this isn't that hard to get. If something is ex cathedra, you would know.

Also there's a lot of evidence Honorius didn't even get shit for actively promoting monothelitism as much as just not being explicit enough in condemning it, probably because he was in Rome mostly fluent in Latin grammar dealing with a Byzantine mostly fluent in Greek grammar.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I#Legacy
>In contemporary times, that Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of monothelitism has given rise to much discussion, and John B. Bury argues that the most reasonable conclusion is that Honorius did not really apprehend the point at issue, considering it more a question of grammar than theology, for he placed "one energy" and "two energies" on exactly the same footing; in Bury's words, "it was for the 'imprudent economy of silence' that he was condemned".[14]

>>22269238
So in fact papal infallibility has been exercised numerous times prior to the 19th century (at least 19 times, through the ratification of all the prior ecumenical councils, but in fact more than that), and also more than twice since, contrary to what the other (misguided) anon was claiming.

>>22269119
>>22269238
>>22269239
>Honorius' letter was private
Weird then how his letter became the basis for the Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius, the letter which promulgated the Monothelite heresy as official state dogma. Of course it was not a private, but an official letter between two bishops in their office as concerning church doctrine, and letters in the anicent world were widely circulated and read as authoritative teaching (e.g. Paul's letter to Philemon, canonized in scripture).

>JB Bury said
Not a theologian, and doesn't grasp why it was heretical for Honorius to teach that Christ only had one will. The error was thinking that Christ's two wills are opposed to each other therefore one will obliterating the other was necessary, not recognizing that Christ's human will is sinless and therefore in alignment with his divine will as human wills were in concord with the divine before the Fall. Honorius' ignorance of this led him to diminish Christ's fully human nature.

But if Pope Honorius was not teaching heresy, then the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (and later Nicaea II and Constantinople IV) which condemned Honorius for heresy was in error. A council which was accepted by Rome, and after which future popes anathematized Honorius for centuries afterwards (until it got too embarrassing for their claims of papal supremacy).

>Honorius didn't *intend* to teach heresy
Honorius taught heresy in fact and was condemned for it by multiple ecumenical councils. His intentions (in any way unknowable) are irrelevant.

>Tome of Leo wasn't ex cathedra
It meets all of the criteria of Vatican I. In his book Papal Primacy, Catholic historian Klaus Schatz includes Leo's Tome in his list of ex cathedra statements. Even papal apologists try to use Leo's Tome as evidence to argue for papal infallibility. (Of course they are reading Vatican I back into it, but if one holds the doctrine of papal infallibility at Vatican I to be correct, then Leo's Tome certainly counts.)

Anyway, I love the scattergun apologia I've got from multiple replies here:
Honorius' letter wasn't teaching anything because it was private
Honorius was teaching but it wasn't heresy but a grammatical error
Honorius was teaching heresy but he was doing so unintentionally.
Kek.

>>22269119
>Also, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is divinely revealed and part of sacred tradition
I agree. Then we can conclude the argument of >>22267204 that denying papal supremacy because it's a Medieval invention is like denying the Trinity is wrong. The former is an apostolic tradition, the latter is not.

>The various EO liturgies have in fact changed over time
You don't have to try to pretend other churches are worse just to make yourself feel better about your church dumping its liturgy in the 60s and Francis banning Latin mass.

>>22269163
>Zealot orthodox who deny the reality of doctrinal development
Tradcaths will say this and then mourn the disaster that was Vatican II. Kek.

Either oppose popes and synods "developing" doctrine found in sacred tradition as they want, or hold to sacred tradition and recognize that the Roman church is in heresy. But don't claim to hate your popes, hate your councils, while also clinging to the same heretical doctrines which justify their authority.

>>22269435
>The former is an apostolic tradition, the latter is not
*other way round lol

>>22268893
You’re a pseud and out of your league
Have your (You) and exit the thread

>>22268130
Some day the French monarchy will be restored and old Nappy will turn in his grave.

>>22262689
>and I really don't see how we're supposed to go for 427000 more years of this bullshit
Time travel/dilation

>>22269435
Papal supremacy is apostolic tradition. It was instituted by Jesus Christ himself. In fact, a key difference between the doctrine of papal supremacy and the dogma of the Holy Trinity is that there is more direct scriptural support for papal supremacy. Christ built His Church on the office of Saint Peter.

>Tradcaths will say this and then mourn the disaster that was Vatican II.
Huh? Who do you think you're talking to? Also, doctrinal development is real. You cannot argue your way around it. It's like denying gravity exists. There is not a single Christian tradition that has not went through development over time. You have to be mentally ill to deny this, which is why only the most brainwashed and overzealous idiots deny it.

>You don't have to try to pretend other churches are worse
What the hell are you talking about you shit-for-brains? I merely stated a fact: the EO liturgies have went through numerous reforms and changes over time. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the changes do not alter the sacramental character of the Eucharist and the sacrificial context of the celebration of the liturgy.

It was a reply to the claim that "change = bad" that various imbeciles made ITT, including a bonafide cretin who falsely claimed that the EO liturgy has been conserved unchanged since the 4th century, which is a preposterously stupid thing to claim. Only an orthobro LARPer would be enough of a moron to claim something as ridiculous as that.

>>22269405
>Weird then how his letter became the basis for the Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius
You're pulling shit out of your own ass. Heraclius wrote the Ecthesis not basing it on anything other than his desire to force a closure of the schism. He used Honorius' letter as evidence that the pope agrees to his position, but that simply does not change the objective state of affairs that a letter by a pope to a patriarch does not constitute an ex cathedra declaration that is meant to be binding on all the faithful. You're reaching.

> Catholic historian Klaus Schatz includes Leo's
Every act a pope makes as pope is an ex cathedra act, since it is him exercising his papal office. But not every ex cathedra action of the pope is meant to be binding on the faithful, nor is every ex cathedra act infallible. It would be better for you if you stopped talking about shit you have no knowledge of. Neither Leo's Tome nor Honorius' letter fall under the category of binding to all the faithful. So they are not protected from error, even though Leo's Tome is fully orthodox while Honorius' letter is arguably heretical.

But to go back to the original entrypoint for this discussion: the same council that declared Honorius a heretic also accepted Agatho's claims to supremacy and infallibility. Of course to this you might retort, "we orthodox don't believe that ecumenical councils are infallible" (even though there are EO who believe just that, inconsistently) which just proves you're just another species of protestant who at the end of the day merely picks and chooses what to believe, just to not be in communion with the pope, who sits on the throne of Saint Peter which Christ himself founded.

>>22268450
But both the Greek and Russian Patriarchs (say that they) can do all of that and have done all that. Isn't the very fact that they believe they can condemn people to hell via bureaucracy a testament to that?

>>22269476
insightful cope from a spiteful seethevacantist

>>22261112
Liberalism is descended from Christianity.

>>22262075
Because it's obvious that the Church did a 180 on certain teachings after WW2 but this is incompatible with the Church preserving a set of unchanging dogmas for centuries, therefore (most of) the Church must've defected, the Pope automatically ceased to be Pope, etc.

>>22262075
>You just assume that Francis is the Pope
He is. He was elected so by the College of Cardinals, the smoke signal went up, they did the spooky Freemasonic rituals, they confirmed that he has testicles, and they put the big golden egg on his head. All Catholics accept him as Pope, all Bishops say that he is, and all Cardinals accept that he is the temporal and spiritual head of the planet.

If the mechanisms and apparatus of the Vatican can be deceived and/or misused in such a manner that Francis is, despite by all accounts being the Pope, not actually the Pope, what's the point in being Catholic? No, seriously, why bother? By your own admission the point of pretending to be Catholic is to interface with the Vatican bureaucracy for the purposes of doing crypto-White Nationalism, but if the Vatican can't be used for that then there's no point in pretending to be Catholic.

>>22266892
Very humble.

>>22260150
For the contemporary western mind, poisoned by the neverending results of liberal presumptions, overinflated by countless suggestions of individual sovereignty, moral equality and natural rights, it seems the following in some coarse succession are the greatest stumbling blocks to the full truth of reality:
>the proper authority of one's parents over oneself
>the proper authority of the state
>the proper authority of one's spouse
>the proper authority of God
>the proper authority of Jesus Christ
>the proper authority of the Pope
Very few seem to avoid being taken in by the liberal whispers of freedom from and rights to and avoid dashing their skulls upon any one of them, but to avoid such a state is the goal.

>>22262239
giga based and spirit pilled

>>22261246
True, and like any fundamentalist group, “traditional” Catholics are ironically a newer and more modern group than liberalism is.

>>22263110
Cope

>>22270592
If you have to call yourself a traditionalist, you no longer are.

holy fuck we need a religion board

>>22269743
>You're pulling shit out of your own ass.
Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#I
>December, he assembled a great synod at Constantinople, which accepted the Ecthesis as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching"; the letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety for this. Honorius was already dead, and had no opportunity of approving or disapproving the imperial document *which had been based upon his letter.*

>He used Honorius' letter as evidence that the pope agrees to his position
So the Emperor implemented a public doctrinal teaching from the Pope and it legally bound the faithful.

And the Echtesis had been drafted, waiting for approval of the Emperor to be published, for two years after Honorius letter, and not once did he think to inform the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Emperor that his letter was not actually intended to bind the faithful.

>very act a pope makes as pope is an ex cathedra act, since it is him exercising his papal office. But not every ex cathedra action of the pope is meant to be binding on the faithful, nor is every ex cathedra act infallible
Catholic historian Klaus Schatz includes Leo's Tome on his list of infallible statements. This is widely accepted, and even argued for, by Roman apologists. If Leo's Tome was not infallible, then it being read at Chalcedon would make Chalcedon fallible. And if it was made infallible by Chalcedon, that would disprove papal infallibility.

>the same council that declared Honorius a heretic also accepted Agatho's claims to supremacy and infallibility
Yet it condemned Honorius as a heretic. So clearly it did not think Popes were supreme and infallible, because they could become heretics in matters of doctrine and could be anathemtized and deposed by the rest of the church.

>>22269715
>Papal supremacy is apostolic
Yet it was never accepted by the church and only asserted by popes beginning in the early Medieval period.
>Christ built His Church on the office of Saint Peter.
Yes, and all bishops derive their authority from the office Saint Peter.
>doctrinal development is real
A limited, judicious form is real. The Roman doctrine is not.

>>22269753
>But both the Greek and Russian Patriarchs (say that they) can do all of that and have done all that
No they don't and haven't. Show where they have.

>>22271093
Well here's a really simple one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow%E2%80%93Constantinople_schism
Since 1992 the Russian and Greek Patriarchs have stated that those who follow the other are excommunicated and as such are guaranteed to be sent to hell. So, yes, they literally do.

Which, even if I didn't provide you with an example, doesn't answer the actual question: why is it acceptable when the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constantinople say that they are the universal bishop, but it's unacceptable when the Patriarch of Rome says that he's the universal bishop?

>>22271050
>So the Emperor implemented a public doctrinal teaching from the Pope
Did you even read your own quote you dumbass? Honorius was already dead by that point. The letter was never meant to be used as such, it was merely dug out of some archive after the fact. If the emperor had not found the letter, he would have produced some other document to support the Ecthesis with. The letter was just an excuse.

You continue to grasp at straws, and the worst part is that your connections are getting more and more tenuous.

>and it legally bound the faithful.
It did not, except with secular authority, that is, the same authority that a citizen of the empire was subject to for any other law of the land. The emperor had no such spiritual prerogative or legal power.

>Klaus Schatz includes Leo's Tome on his list of infallible statements.
The Tome is infallible insofar as it is correct: that is, it espouses the orthodox position, so is without error. But it is not correct in virtue of the pope being its source, since it does not meet the criteria for that papal prerogative to be invoked. It was a document meant to settle, once again, a matter of jurisprudence and reinstate a wrongly deposed pope. It was not meant to be binding on all the faithful, and any doctrinal statements in it are ancillary to its primary purpose, irrespective of its later use during a council as evidence of the correct Christology.

Also, Klaus Schatz has no magisterial authority whatsoever. He's just a historian.

>Yet it condemned Honorius as a heretic.
Indeed. While at the same time affirming Agatho's statement and claims about the Roman Church and its bishop, which entailed papal infallibility.

>So clearly it did not think Popes were supreme and infallible
Plainly contradicted by the very acts of the council, where Agatho's claims are affirmed. Your problem of course is that, if you're not trolling, you're straight up retarded and can't read. Honorius' heresy did not invalidate the doctrinal spotlessness of the See of Rome, under the judgement of the very council which condemned him as a heretic, so clearly his personal heresy wasn't sufficient grounds for his office to be corrupted and the charism of infallibility to be falsified. Could it be because however heretical his views on the wills of Christ may have been, he never attempted to bind the faithful to them? It's funny how even the quotes you mine point this out, and it was in fact the emperor doing that. But to a moron, what's the difference between a pope doing something and an emperor doing something?

Oh right, you're an orthotard. For you the Church is just another arm of the state, so if the emperor does something it's in your mind the same as the pope doing it. Tragic state of affairs but not surprising you'd believe that, given how the EO churches have been the whores of emperors, czars and sultans for centuries.

>>22271341
> reinstate a wrongly deposed pope
Reinstate a wrongly deposed bishop, although the above statement is also correct since "pope" used to be a title for any bishop in the past.

>>22271341
>The letter was never meant to be used as such, it was merely dug out of some archive after the fact
No, Patriarch Sergius drafted the Echtesis soon after Honorius' letter on its basis in 636. It only took until 638 for Heraclius to publish it, because he was trying to reconcile the Eastern bishops to the formula. At no point did Honorius object. Again, this is not disputed historically and can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia and other Roman historians.

>It did not, except with secular authority, that is, the same authority that a citizen of the empire was subject to for any other law of the land. The emperor had no such spiritual prerogative or legal power.
The Emperor, the Patriarch and the Pope intended to bind the faithful to the doctrine in Honorius' letter. Whether they had the power to (I agree they did not) is irrelevant to our discussion about whether Honorius' letter was to bind the faithful, and was therefore ex cathedra according to Vatican I.

>But it is not correct in virtue of the pope being its source
I agree. But it meets all of the criterion of Vatican I infallibility, and later Roman apologists have claimed it is an infallible document. If the Tome of Leo is not an infallible document, then Vatican I is in error.
>It was not meant to be binding on all the faithful
Yes it was? Leo specifically composed his letter to be read out at an ecumenical council to put forward Rome's position on the Eutychian controversy
>Also, Klaus Schatz has no magisterial authority whatsoever. He's just a historian.
This is literally the position of countless Roman apologists. They even try to use Leo's Tome to prove papal infallibility was accepted at Chalcedon (which is a ridiculous backreading).

>Indeed. While at the same time affirming Agatho's statement and claims about the Roman Church and its bishop, which entailed papal infallibility.
Condemning an ex cathedra doctrinal statement from the Bishop of Rome as heresy is not entailing papal infallibility.

>Plainly contradicted by the very acts of the council, where Agatho's claims are affirmed
Show me where you think the acts of the council affirmed papal supremacy and infallibility.

>Honorius' heresy did not invalidate the doctrinal spotlessness of the See of Rome
I don't think Honorius teaching heresy is doctrinally spotless, and neither did three ecumenical councils and multiple succeeding popes.

>you're straight up retarded
>But to a moron
>you're an orthotard
I understand you're angry at the historical evidence of a pope teaching heresy, but try to look at the evidence dispassionately.

>>22271431
>I understand you're angry at the historical evidence of a pope teaching heresy
You're really not worth engaging. I'm not angry because Honorius was condemned as a heretic. That's a historical fact and I'm not a loon that tries to deny settled history. I'm angry because I'm talking to a wall of retardation. You pull shit out of your own ass and continue to misrepresent the Catholic position even after being corrected on it multiple times. At this point you're clearly trolling or just batshit stupid.

>the Pope intended to bind the faithful to the doctrine in Honorius' letter.
False.
> Leo specifically composed his letter to be read out at an ecumenical council to put forward Rome's position on the Eutychian controversy
Wrong. Leo composed the letter to support Flavian's decision to excommunicate Eutychian. Then it was later read aloud at the council. What was binding on the faithful was the council which the pope later ratified. The letter was just a document among many discussed during its sessions.
>This is literally the position of countless Roman apologists.
And? They're wrong. Apologists have no magisterial authority anyway. Plus, if by "Roman apologists" you mean the online Catholic Answers/Youtube crowd, those are plainly retarded.

>Show me where you think the acts of the council affirmed papal supremacy and infallibility.
Read nigger, read: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm
>the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things
> this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things
One more time, for the blind:
>this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error

And the council accepted Agatho's claim without reservation, all the while condemning Honorius as a heretic, so clearly Honorius' heresy did not constitute an instance in which "this Apostolic Church of his [Peter's]" (that is, the See of Rome) had turned away from the path of truth in the direction of error. Really makes you think, had you a brain. Alas.

So either, 1) the bishops at the council are straight up retarded and affirmed both A and not-A, therefore contradicting themselves. or 2) Honorius' personal heresy did not rise to the level where it would constitute a turn towards error by the pope.

>>22271641
>>22271431
In closing, you keep droning on about Honorius' heresy, as if I'm denying his condemnation like some retarded autist. I'm tired of talking to a wall. Yes, the council condemned him as a heretic. The same council that also affirmed Agatho's letter, which claims that the See of Rome "has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error". It's like you have blinders on. There are only two possible options here, 1) the council contradicts itself, which cuts both ways (probably why you're ignoring this, since even a retard like you realizes that this also undermines the EO position, especially since the you schismatics view councils much more highly than the Catholic Church does) or 2) Honorius' heresy does not invalidate the papal claims, which is yet another reason why you're shoving your head in the sand, because this clearly cuts in only one direction, and it's not the Catholic position that gets scarred.

And with that I'm done.

>>22271654
>Honorius' heresy
Isn't this a warhammer 40k book?

>>22271641
>Leo composed the letter to support Flavian's decision to excommunicate Eutychian
Eutyches, not Eutychian, but yes, Eutyches was teaching heresy, and Leo in the letter supporting his excommunication taught what was wrong with Eutyches' doctrine that justified his excommunication and the excommunication of any other person who held to the same doctrine. This is the "binding the faithful" standard of Vatican I.

Unless you think a pope can teach that one individual can be excommunicated for a false doctrine, but that doesn't bind anyone else with the same doctrine.

Again, if you require an explicit statement of "this is an infallible ex cathedra teaching and intended to bind the whole church" then there have only been two invocations of papal infallibility in history, post Vatican I. Which itself disproves the doctrine as part of tradition.

If you deny early popes like Leo and Honorius were trying to bind the church to the doctrine they promulgated, then you are furnishing strong evidence against papal infallibility and supremacy as accepted in that period.

>this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error
Refers to the whole church, and was taken as such by the council. As can clearly be seen by

If you think otherwise, the council taught that Rome had never erred, and that Rome had taught heresy. Which is a simple contradiction no council could make.

>Honorius' personal heresy did not rise to the level where it would constitute a turn towards error by the pope.
If you don't think teaching Monothelitism is an error, I don't know what to say. Certainly the council did say Honorius teaching Monothelitism was a heresy, which is explicitly why it, two further councils, and centuries of later popes condemned him.

From the acts of Constantinople III:
>But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, among the orthodox people, an heresy
The council says Honorius was an instrument of Satan working out his will, and was actively employed to raise up stumbling-blocks for the whole church.
This is not a council which believed popes could not err.

The only defense is to claim ad hoc that Honorius was not teaching ex cathedra. Which ignores that Honorius' letter was defining doctrine in an official letter to another bishop, which meets the ex cathedra criteria of Vatican I, and the letter was immediately used to draft a document to bind the whole church.

>larpers calling each other larpers

the only difference between a tradfaggot and a regular catholic is pedigree. normal catholics dislike the trads for being weird nerds and trads dislike the normies for being soma smoking modernists. but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because the supernatural is not real so you are essentially arguing over a political and aesthetic phenomenon while pretending it's actually magical. a cursory glance at today's seminaries reveals the absurdity of the larp: by the time a catholic priest is ordained he is a metaphysical naturalist if he wasn't already, and is also an experienced sodomite. in contrast, a majority of the world's laymen are superstitious morons. if the plebs knew what priests really believe they would abandon the larp faster than they already are.

being a christcuck becomes less and less excusable in a world where magic is more and more obviously not real. miracles are not real, heaven is not real, you have no eternal soul and have no proof that qualia will persist after your death. to try and jusify your lore with reason is even more embarrassing. your pope knows this and that's why he plays you like a fiddle, turning your church into a gay mockery of itself. it is politics and grift dressed in a robe, always was. worshipping a man famous for being brutally vanquished will win you nothing but disappointment and
is a metaphor for your dysgenic ideology.

you fags are going to have to find a new way forward because it's been literal millennia and your rabbi still hasn't come back. religion is so fucking retarded lmao

>>22271736
I bet you felt really smart typing that out

>>22271781
not any smarter than people shitposting about muh vatican ii on an anime website on a sunday. shouldn't you be at mass or washing refugee feet rn

>>22271736
I should save this one, this would be fantastic to post at the beginning of one of these gay warhammer theology threads.

traditional christian server for all denominations: https://discord.gg/u7NTsey3

>>22271687
>Refers to the whole church, and was taken as such by the council. As can clearly be seen by
t clearly refers to the Roman Church alone. .That's the local church the whole paragraph is about.

>>22271687
If it refers to the universal Church than that claim is even worse, since numerous bishops across its history especially in the east, had taught various heresies. Way to shoot yourself in the foot with that one.

>>22272760
>>22272783
So if the Eastern Orthodox interpretation is the correct one, Christianity is false. Talk about cutting the branch from under your own feet,

>>22271801
>shouldn't you be at mass
Sunday Mass doesn't last 24 hours.

>or washing refugee feet rn
Oh, you're just a /pol/tard, good to know.

>>22272760
That is the sense the council took it in. Agatho quotes Augustine on terminology he used to describe the whole church.

Furthermore, other than anathematizing a previous pope as a heretic for teaching error, one can look at how the council validated Agatho's letter to see their opinion on papal infallibility:

>In the Eighth Session of the Synod the Emperor asked the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, who at their own request had received copies of the said reports to read, to state whether they and their Synods agreed with the sense of the reports sent by Agatho, most holy Pope of Rome, and his Synod. George of Constantinople replied as follows: ‘Having inspected, O pious Lord, the full force of the reports sent to your most pious person by Agatho, most holy Pope of Rome, and his Synod, and having examined the writings of the holy and approved Fathers which are kept in my venerable Patriarchal house, I have found all the testimonies of the holy and approved Fathers which are contained in the said reports, to be correct and in no way disagreeing with the holy and approved Fathers, and I agree with them and so confess and believe.’ The Bishops, who were subject to the Patriarchs, one after the other made similar declarations.

The bishops at the council accepted Agatho's letter only after examining it to see if it was in accord with the Church Fathers and sacred tradition (which is standard Orthodox doctrine up to today). If the council already accepted papal supremacy and infallibility, they would have known they did not have the standing to even examine Agatho's letter or check it against the Fathers, but would have known they had to accept it on papal authority.

>>22272783
It's a declaration that the universal church itself never fell into error. Which is true. Bishops falling into error does not follow that the universal church itself was in error.

>>22273084
>The bishops at the council accepted Agatho's letter only after examining it to see if it was in accord with the Church Fathers and sacred tradition
Indeed, and papal supremacy is part of Sacred Tradition.

>It's a declaration that the universal church itself never fell into error.
It isn't, unless by that you mean that there was never an instance in which the Church fell totally into error, that is, when every single bishop proclaimed heresy simultaneously, which is a completely unfalsifiable claim, since there is no objective means by which to determine it. Hence why we have multiple schismatic traditions that have split off from the Catholic Church, every single one claiming to be orthodox, from the most inane evangelical protestant, to the self-titled "Orthodox" churches themselves.

>>22273103
>Indeed, and papal supremacy is part of Sacred Tradition.
If your only evidence of this being accepted by the early church is somewhat ambiguous flowery language in the same council where they anathematized a Pope as heretic and examined another Pope's letter in light of the Fathers to ascertain its orthodoxy, no.

>It isn't, unless by that you mean that there was never an instance in which the Church fell totally into error, that is, when every single bishop proclaimed heresy simultaneously, which is a completely unfalsifiable claim,
I think in that council it refers to the impossibility of all five patriarchs, the collective leadership of the church, or an ecumenical council, to fall into error.

But even if you take that absurdly rigorist interpretation, why (in theory) couldn't every single bishop proclaim heresy? All of Israel fell into error multiple times in its history. Why couldn't the new Israel if God willed it?

>since there is no objective means by which to determine it.
The Church Fathers and sacred tradition, and scripture, interpreted in light of the previous.

>>22267337
>or produce in the jury the conviction that there is a slight possibility, however, remote, that your man is innocent, even though you don't even believe it yourself.
By this same metric, you are assessing the teachings of Vatican II in as an uncharitable a manner as possible in order to vindicate your sede beliefs to yourself.

>>22273103
>Indeed, and papal supremacy is part of Sacred Tradition.
If your only evidence of this being accepted by the early church is somewhat ambiguous flowery language in the same council where they anathematized a Pope as heretic and examined another Pope's letter in light of the Fathers to ascertain its orthodoxy, no.

>It isn't, unless by that you mean that there was never an instance in which the Church fell totally into error, that is, when every single bishop proclaimed heresy simultaneously, which is a completely unfalsifiable claim,
I think in that council it refers to the impossibility of all five patriarchs, the collective leadership of the church, or an ecumenical council, to fall into error. But I don't find that hypothetical unfalsifiable. We know from scripture that all of Israel fell into idolatry multiple times in its history.

>since there is no objective means by which to determine it.
The Church Fathers and sacred tradition, and scripture, interpreted in light of the previous.

>Hence why we have multiple schismatic traditions that have split off from the Catholic Church
Rome schismed from the Orthodox church. Rome altered the creed, unilaterally broke communion with the East arguing the rest of the church had altered the creed (historically false), and then unilaterally imposed Roman bishops and rites on Eastern churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction.

>>22273144
>If your only evidence of this being accepted by the early church is somewhat ambiguous flowery language in the same council where they anathematized a Pope as heretic
Earliest evidence of it is in sacred Scripture. And then several attestations in the early Church prior to this incident, which from what I can tell was brought up ITT merely as an example of a pre 9th century claim of papal infallibility.

>I think in that council it refers to the impossibility of all five patriarchs, the collective leadership of the church, or an ecumenical council, to fall into error.
You think wrong. In the council it refers to the pope.

>Rome schismed from the Orthodox church.
Nah.

>>22273161
>>22273144
Forgot to add

>The Church Fathers and sacred tradition, and scripture, interpreted in light of the previous.
Even prots claim the same thing. And whenever the fathers, or tradition disagrees with them on this or that doctrine or this or that reading of scripture, they merely dismiss it out of hand using ad hoc rationalizations, just like you. Zero objectivity. I mean, you did it just now. Text plainly says X (Roman Church) you read Y (universal Church). Many such cases.

>>22273161
>In the council it refers to the pope
Then again, why did the council only accept the pope's letter after examining it in light of the Fathers and sacred tradition? If they accepted popes cannot err then they would be in contradiction. The council itself shows ecumenical councils and tradition are above papal teaching.

>>22273166
>Text plainly says X (Roman Church) you read Y (universal Church)
Text plainly refers to "the" Apostolic Church, i.e. the universal one, and borrows Augustine's language of the "spiritual mother" which he applied to the universal church.

The text of the council plainly anathematizes Honorius as a heretic, and the council plainly sets itself above ex cathedra papal teaching, you read "doesn't matter lol, Vatican I".

>>22261273
I see, now God is real.

>>22273166
>Even prots claim the same thing
Protestants don't claim the Church Fathers, sacred tradition or ecumenical councils as authoritative guide to doctrine. The Orthodox Church does. That's why protestants fall into heresy and the Orthodox Church has not.

>>22273174
>Text plainly refers to "the" Apostolic Church, i.e. the universal one
Not so. From >>22271641 which quotes directly from the newadvent transcripts of the council, a clear distinction is being drawn between "this Apostolic Church" and Apostle Peter's (and his successors) role as bishop of it, and "the whole Catholic Church" and Peter as "Prince of all the Apostles" over it. The claim of never having "never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error" pertains to "this Apostolic Church", that is Peter's See (the Church of Rome). And when the "whole Catholic Church" is mentioned, it is very unambiguously written that it has "faithfully embraced, and followed in all things" the authority of the aforementioned "Apostolic Church", i.e. Church of Rome.

Quite evidently, text says X, you read Y. I should be surprised but I'm not. It's the only way schismatics can maintain their error. You've had 1000 years of practice at this kind of lying.

>>22273201
>Protestants don't claim the Church Fathers, sacred tradition or ecumenical councils as authoritative guide to doctrine.
You seem to be misinformed. Most in fact do, especially the "magisterial" protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, Methodists etc). The merely say that while being authoritative, they are not infallible, and so they pick and choose what to believe. Luther and Calvin quote copiously from the fathers in support of their mistaken views.

>>22273210
>>22273201
I mean, most of the Patristic translations and scholarship in English was done by Anglicans. So to claim that protestant don't accept the fathers or tradition as authoritative only speaks to your own ignorance. Quite typical of the orthodox.

>>22273208
>>22273174
To reiterate. If "the whole Catholic Church" wasn't directly mentioned as faithful to the authority of "this Apostolic Church" you might have a point about the council misunderstanding Agatho to refer to the universal Church by mentioning "this Apostolic Church", but given how the distinction is very explicitly drawn out in the text you have no ground to stand on.

>>22273174
Oh and, as for
>Then again, why did the council only accept the pope's letter after examining it in light of the Fathers and sacred tradition?
Sorry but this question is just daft. Not even God demands of us to be dumb parrots who blindly obey Him. He made us rational creatures with a free will. Naturally, God wouldn't expect this kind of blind submission to the authority of the pope either, so the fact that the bishops at the councils deliberated on the matter before assenting to the pope's counsel is quite fitting.

>>22265744
>the Vatican has held that sex is a sin for 1700 years

>>22266878
>And don't tell me it's protestants
It's protestants

>>22268041
pbuh

Rama Coom says in the preface to his book that his arguments in it have remained unanswered and unaddressed, to regular catholics have anything to say about that? Did they ever engage with his arguments or not?

>>22260150
I wish good luck to the Catholic church, because the only way Christianity will be palpable to the modern conscious is if you accept and teach Universalism.
Thomas Aquinas taught the perverse and sadistic notion that the fires of hell and the suffering of the damned elevate the pleasure of the elect, that they stand around these fires looking and down feeling so so grateful that its not them down there. It was a long held Catholic belief that unbaptised infants go to hell, they could not be saved.
How just, thank you so much God, what a beautiful world you have made. You know that muslim family that you saw an American jet drop bombs on ? I guess you couldn't save their souls eh, weren't baptised or anything, in fact they spoke AGAINST your only Son. Well good on you God, they can burn forever.
Look at picrel, look at how one can always make good of their life, always turn away from hate and pride and misery. But you say that at some point this thread is cut, and when it's cut it's consequence is eternal. That's not justice, or love.

I think that hell exists, but is simply not eternal, Jesus descended into it for three days, what did he do down there? I think he vanquished it, destroyed death and sin. I think he won.

>>22274348
It's a dogma that the damned are eternally tortured, furthermore, it should be assumed that Aquinas is right that one of the greatest pleasures of Heaven is the torment of the damned. You view yourself as more compassionate than God.

>>22275201
This doesn't come from me, read Gregory of Nyssa, or writings on his works. 4th century Church Father.
Why should it be assumed Aquinas is right, and not Nyssa?
And why does everyone ignore the fact that near the end of the life of Aquinas he had a mystical experience and then decided to write no more. His friends asked him why, and he said "All my works are straw."
>more compassionate than God
Curious that it is possible to have a more compassionate truth than what you say God has, very curious. Shouldn't our ideals of compassion pale in comparison?
>Dogma
So what, it changes. Just change the dogma that dogma can not be changed. Or if you want congruity then come up with the most elaborate and legalistic version of "the invisible church."
What if your mother went to hell. What do you think of that, would you grieve? Thomas says it will make you happy. Does that make sense to you?

>>22275302
>Why should it be assumed Aquinas is right and not Nyssa?
Don't know why I called him Nyssa there, he's Gregory obv.

>>22275302
>Why should it be assumed Aquinas is right, and not Nyssa?
In Catholicism you generally assume Aquinas is always right unless explicitly proven wrong (see: Immaculate Conception, Aquinas was wrong in that case).

>Curious that it is possible to have a more compassionate truth than what you say God has, very curious. Shouldn't our ideals of compassion pale in comparison?
Saving even one human, from God's perspective, is more compassionate towards humankind is more compassionate than anything any human has ever done or thought. All humans deserve eternal punishment via inheritance.

>So what, it changes. Just change the dogma that dogma can not be changed. Or if you want congruity then come up with the most elaborate and legalistic version of "the invisible church."
Catholicism can't openly change dogmas or it'd be false.

>What if your mother went to hell. What do you think of that, would you grieve? Thomas says it will make you happy. Does that make sense to you?
99% of humanity will go to Hell. Assuming that Aquinas is correct, then it will somehow although it can't be comprehended on Earth.

>>22261886
Plenty of saints lived during the Avignon papacy

>>22275317
>In Catholicism you generally assume Aquinas is always right unless explicitly proven wrong (see: Immaculate Conception, Aquinas was wrong in that case).
This was my least favorite part about Catholic education.

>>22275317
This is a morbid and tragic truth then, remind why it would be called "The Good News" again?
Do you know what most people believed outside of monotheism, reincarnation, it is incredibly common. The only real surviving pagan religion is Hinduism, but the Celts believed this, the far east believed this, indigenous people believed this. Compared to that, why would the 'truth' that 99% of you will suffer eternally unless you supplicate yourself to God entirely, or get lucky and die within a technicality of grace, having just received baptism or confession.
What is the joy in this religion?

>>22275373
>...having just received baptism or confession be good news?
That's how the second to last sentence is supposed to finish, sorry I'm tired.

>>22275373
>This is a morbid and tragic truth then, remind why it would be called "The Good News" again?
The Good News is that avoiding Hell is at least possible.

>Do you know what most people believed outside of monotheism, reincarnation, it is incredibly common
That doesn't mean it's correct.

>What is the joy in this religion?
What you should be unhappy about is being born, not the truth of Christianity. Again, all deserve eternal torment, it was only through God's unmerited compassion that anyone at all is saved.

>>22273878
>when you LARP so hard you forget about the seven deadly sins

>>22275392
>What you should be unhappy about is being born
That'd be true in the demiurgical reality you believe in. You make it sound like God despises us and Christ is a Prometheus figure sent who seems to have more compassion than the father.
But really, think about that statement, that we should be unhappy that we were born. If you believe that then go all the way, become a Manichean or a Cathar and eschew creating progeny, despise this life on earth, it's a terrible thing to be here, to be born. Why would the church promote families if this were the case.
>That doesn't mean it's correct.
Never said it was, I said it's a preferable truth to your understanding of salvation.

>>22275429
>That'd be true in the demiurgical reality you believe in. You make it sound like God despises us and Christ is a Prometheus figure sent who seems to have more compassion than the father.
This wouldn't make sense from a Trinitarian perspective. The simple reality is that wickedness must be punished and that sin against an infinite being merits infinite punishment and this has been consensus for centuries.

>Why would the church promote families if this were the case.
Celibacy is objectively a superior state to marriage according to Catholic dogma iirc.

>>22275439
I agree it shouldn't make sense from a Trinitarian perspective, which is why I'm pointing it out. The way you say it is very demiurge like, I know not technically, but is is similar in spirit.
A vengeful father who deems none of his children worthy, and a new figure from him who does his utmost to remedy the situation but still can not fix the ultimate state of mankind.
Why wouldn't an infinite being have infinite love and forgiveness, you are only talking about his infinity when it comes to vengeful and eternal justice.
I know this has been the consensus in the western church for centuries, but I simply think it is an incorrect doctrine.
What is the limit of obedience to the doctrine of your church, when does your God given soul and sense win over, what if you found a passage that read "If a young girl drops her first Holy Communion, the present congregation and the priest should gang rape her to death." I know that's absurd and the doctrine says nothing like that, but if you did read it, wouldn't you immediately realize that this must be a mistake, it can't be true. You are made in the Image of God, you have a spark of divinity. You have the Likeness of God in you.
Now imagine the little girl again, but this time suppose she died unbaptised, now she's getting gang raped by demons in hell for eternity. Does this rub you the wrong way at all?
>celibacy is a superior state to marriage
This one I think is true in a special way, they are certainly superior to hold any position of authority or order of the church. But look into this one, I haven't looked into it too much. JPII was incredibly incredibly pro family and life though, and would certainly laugh you out of the room if said "We should be unhappy about being born." (He wouldn't actually laugh, I think he'd find it disgusting and try and correct you.)

To all my christian brothers arguing here, you are all arguing about the true faith which already means the intent and the will for good are there, however try to keep an open mind at the theological positions of others and focus on what you have in common and in building bridges instead of calling each others heretics. Faith and the Catholic Church especially is something that has been politicised in many occasions and it always has been done exploiting these little differences in ideology, never lower yourself to the point of calling others heretics because there is where the devil awaits.

>>22275543
I'll add to more things here, I think these are important. We believe that the doctrine of the church (the church you happen to belong to mind you) is the Word of God. You trust this. But remember that God sometimes lies for a very special purpose.
He told Abraham to sacrifice is only son Isaac to him. Abraham was horribly sad and disappointed, his God turned out to be a wicked one, but he seemed to obey. It was the word of God that told him to kill his son, and then it was the word of God that told him to stop. He was testing him. So I can find admiration in you for believing that 99% of people will go to hell, and yet still try and understand and know that God is love and truth and beauty.

And secondly, consider altruism. Who is better, the person who doesn't steal because he believes he will get caught, but will steal when he can get away with it. Or is it the person who doesn't steal regardless because he doesn't want to cause pain to the OTHER person. He's not afraid of his own pain, it's the other persons loss he sees as a bad thing.

So we are Gods children, and how do you raise children, you control them to an extent, you tell them to not do things, and if they do them you punish them. When one kid's being mean to another you could make him sit in time out, you want him to understand that being mean causes pain. Right now he understands it as "being mean causes me pain." But eventually you want him to grow up and know that being mean causes other people pain, and that is why it is bad.

Look at how Gods successive covenants with mankind are progressive. To the early Israelites Gods Law was to be obeyed because if they transgressed, they were slaughtered, they lost their land, they wandered in the desert; but if they obeyed they got good things, they get Israel, they defeat there enemies and they get money and peace. It is a very temporal theology, this is where modern prosperity gospel comes from. Those who were poor or were struck with leprosy must have displeased the Lord, for he is the one he makes all things happen, he rewards the good people and punishes the bad. Also note that they did NOT have a developed understanding of the afterlife.

The new covenant comes and now we understand that is is not our earthly time that God administers reward or punishment, it's something higher. And now the poor are esteemed in a deep way, even the poor of spirit.

See how he progresses this teaching, see how he withholds certain truths from us. He could have told Moses about Jesus explicitly on Mount Sinai, but he didn't.

We are Gods children, and he wants us to grow up, and altruism is part of this I am sure. And true altruism can only be possible when you do good without any fear of your own pain.

>>22275543
>A vengeful father who deems none of his children worthy, and a new figure from him who does his utmost to remedy the situation but still can not fix the ultimate state of mankind.
~99% damnation is logically the best that can be done under the various logical constraints God is subject to i.e. >>22275439.

>Why wouldn't an infinite being have infinite love and forgiveness, you are only talking about his infinity when it comes to vengeful and eternal justice.
That 1% IS infinite love and forgiveness, IMO.

>Now imagine the little girl again, but this time suppose she died unbaptised, now she's getting gang raped by demons in hell for eternity. Does this rub you the wrong way at all?
Yes but it's deserved via inheritance of original sin according to Augustine.

>JPII was incredibly incredibly pro family and life though, and would certainly laugh you out of the room if said "We should be unhappy about being born." (He wouldn't actually laugh, I think he'd find it disgusting and try and correct you.)
They don't think about it carefully enough.

>>22275728
>Look at how Gods successive covenants with mankind are progressive.
This is how a Christian can meme themselves into believing things that would be considered heresies centuries ago. What other doctrines will we find out are noble lies in the future? The entire Christian edifice falls apart because anything said by God, a Saint etc. could just be a noble lie useful at time T to be discarded at time T'.

>And true altruism can only be possible when you do good without any fear of your own pain.
No one would follow Christianity without the fear of eternal punishment. There is no reason to be a PRACTICING Christian without fear of eternal punishment. Christian sexual ethics are too much for most of the clergy, even.

>>22275640
This. Above all.
The bickering is fine here but I hope everyone ITT realizes we are all more-or-less on the same side when facing the world. Our core values are the same.

>>22276504
You might say this sounds like a demiurge but I don't quite view it that way. It's more like this: For whatever reason, God created the world - why, I don't know, it seems like a bad idea and God obviously has no needs (by divine simplicity). Perhaps just for His own glory. However, the events in Genesis in some sense happened, etc. and Man incurred Original Sin. Again by divine simplicity it follows that sin must be punished (or God would not be Just) and that a sin against an infinite being merits infinite punishment (I think due to Anselm? Or maybe Augustine. I forgot.). In spite of all this, some people can avoid infinite punishment via Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. It's offered to all of course but it's not like anyone takes God up on the offer. Now that I think about it, it's more that in some sense the logical constraints on a divinely simple God lead to a tragic world.

Though, as an aside, I do wonder why the whole Original Sin thing wasn't avoided. According to Catholic Mariology, it's logically possible for someone to be completely without personal sin for their entire life, while retaining free will, due to receiving sufficient grace, so why wasn't it the case that Adam and Eve received similar graces?

>>22276504
Just so you know >>22276549 this reply isn't mine, the guy you were talking to from the op.
But now addressing (you) >>22276549
God created us because it's not good to be alone, he said this to Adam in reference to Eve, and it's true for the relationship of us to Him as well. It is not good to be alone. We're his bride.
He put us here for a purpose, to bring earth to heaven. Knowledge of good and evil is necessary to do this, because it is Godly.
I might be going to bed now, but I'll check in the morning if the thread's still up.

>>22276574
Both of these are me:

>>22276549
>>22276504

>>22276594
Oh I get it now. Ok so I'm losing the energy to try and make good arguments now, like I said, I'll check in the morning.
But I'll just be upfront and honest in explaining why I believe this now, just so you know and you can think about it if you want.
I don't believe the Catholic church is immune to error. Having a doctrine that their doctrines can't be incorrect is simply circular logic, once you step outside this things make sense. I don't accept the doctrine that they can have no incorrect doctrine. It is perfect logical sense.
The narrative that I was taught and that you were taught makes me believe God is evil, so in an effort to keep being a Christian I sought out doctrines and teachings that seem more true and loving. And I found it partly in Gregory of Nyssa (he is a universalist and a saint).
If I am wrong, and people go to hell forever, then here on earth I can not bring myself to love God. But I can fear him. I stay close to the sacraments etc. But I am convinced we will see a development towards Universalism in the nearish future. in the catholic church.

And I truly believe you are wrong in what you said earlier that there is no reason to be a practising catholic without fear of hell.

So I want to ask you two questions, if you could could you please answer them both, separately, and in the simplest way you can.
>does your search for true doctrine begin and end with the catholic church
>why do you believe the catholic church is infallible

>>22276663
And just to clarify, which I'm looking back and I didn't make this clear. Gregory still taught that hell existed, but it was not a permanent state. And he has a bunch of mystical language about the heavenly body aiding christs salvation by helping the souls in hell and getting them out. Idk completely about the last part but you get the idea, it's not eternal.

>>22260150

Agreed, but what is the next step? This is the question that I fail to see any Sedevacantist providing a real, meaningful answer to. All I have ever received is some Ned Flanders bullshit prophecy that, eventually, God will fix the problem for us. Okay, well, if he doesn’t fix the problem before the remaining bishops die, then everyone is fucked. This is the problem with traditional Catholicism… It seems that everybody who practices traditional Catholicism is some passive bureaucrat, who simply nods his head without ever so much as contemplating the idea of taking on a leadership role within the community. Tell me what the hell we are going to do about this problem. It is an existential crisis.

>>22260150
You will no longer be allowed to impose one particular vision of the good life on society, so you might as well focus on yourself and your community, following what you deem to be the best life possible. Liberalism generally allows a variety of ways of life to flourish, including the Christian one, but insists that humans should be free to define what makes life worth living for themselves.

>>22260173
Can we learn to say “vive”? Please? I can’t stand seeing “viva la revolution” when it’s fucking France that we’re talking about. Seriously dude. You think it’s spelled VIVA in French? Hit the books. That’s Spanish.

>>22276663
>The narrative that I was taught and that you were taught makes me believe God is evil, so in an effort to keep being a Christian I sought out doctrines and teachings that seem more true and loving. And I found it partly in Gregory of Nyssa (he is a universalist and a saint).
As I am sure you know, in the standard Thomist account evil is a privation of Good, therefore God cannot be evil by definition. However, I don't deny that sometimes terms like "loving" "compassionate" "justice" as they apply to God appear essentially unrelated to human conception of said terms.

>If I am wrong, and people go to hell forever, then here on earth I can not bring myself to love God. But I can fear him. I stay close to the sacraments etc.
That's perfectly healthy and more than most can do, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, etc.

>But I am convinced we will see a development towards Universalism in the nearish future. in the catholic church.
Some kindhearted priests might want it to be true, but if Catholicism is true then universalism is probably false and it'd require a doctrinal reversal.

>>22276750
I won't respond to your points unless you respond my two questions at the end.

>>22276663
>>22276787
I ran out of characters in the first post.
>does your search for true doctrine begin and end with the catholic church
>why do you believe the catholic church is infallible

Regarding 1: I was born into a Catholic family, plus, most of the hard or unpleasant doctrines hold across major Christian denominations anyway barring a few American Protestant sects or one or two Saints from before 1000AD.

Regarding 2: It's a dogma that there exists some body of sacred Tradition translated unbroken over time. To be honest, the Church is not looking so good right now, so if they attempt a major doctrinal reversal at the upcoming Synod it'll reveal itself to be fraudulent and I'll just become an agnostic atheist. I've never considered Orthodoxy, I've found it hard to pin down what they actually believe in apart from counter-signaling THE DEGENERATE WEST, typical Russian bullshit really. (I know Russia is not the only Ortho country, just noting the similarities here).

If basically any doctrine could be wrong, the entire edifice falls apart or "sacred Tradition" has to be reduced to an extremely small set of beliefs to avoid a doctrinal rugpull.

What do I read to understand this thread? Do I just need to be autistic?

>>22274348
Surely you know there is a quiet but ever growing return to Origen in the catholic Church , through whom the idea of universal reconciliation will be adopted.

>>22276811
>I've never considered Orthodoxy, I've found it hard to pin down what they actually believe in apart from counter-signaling
Because that's literally what "orthodoxy" is nowadays. Those churches have become a caricature of themselves, jumping over backwards just to not be "Romanists" and own the "schismatics" all the way up to the point where they have begun to deny previously held Orthodox beliefs like the assumption of our Lady. They are a body without a head, and it's slowly dying, in slow motion spasms. The Russian orthodox in particular are really far gone.

>>22276811
The only dogma that exists is having faith in the one true God and being a good person and helping each other. Any other dogma is just political manipulation, you're free to live your faith in the way you want and adhere to the rules you think are correct, except for the part where you impose your view of the world on others by force. There are guidelines, of course, but forcing dogma is how you end up like Islam, claiming it is the uncorrupted revelation of Gabriel to the prophet and then ignoring that and focusing on some contemporary tradition texts of obscure origin. You have to separate tradition from faith/dogma, or that roads leads you to sin.

bamp

>>22276980
This thread is actually meta-meta-literature. They are debating the meaning of the meaning of certain religious documents. Way too convoluted for someone who is not already familiar with the topic to understand.

>>22260150
>The Vatican II revolution was nothing less than a surrender to the precepts of liberalism
Kek, christians have zero self awareness

>>22274304
Rama Coom won

>>22279398
The irony of posting Nietzsche.

>>22276716
>but insists that humans should be free to define what makes life worth living for themselves.

>>22279398
Liberalism is not hatred of the world or of the passions. It is entirely atheistic, sensual, uncommitted to any notion of eternal truth or afterlife. The worldview of the modern liberal is nothing more than a drowsy lack of commitment concerning what he is, what his life means, and the relation he occupies vis-a-vis history and the world. Indulgence in the passions, satisfaction of the appetite— which Christianity rightly moderates— is to the liberal the only drive worth pursuing.

So what exactly is the connection you’re attempting to draw here?

I respect Nietzsche for having the courage and perspicacity to see what atheism, or “the death of God”, entails for modern man. He was one of the few atheists to understand the deep necessity of a justification for life. But he did not understand that this justification is only to be found in the infinite, the metaphysically absolute. Just like in chess, only the infinite value of the king creates the possibility of sacrifice.

>>22283179
>The worldview of the modern liberal is nothing more than a drowsy lack of commitment concerning what he is, what his life means, and the relation he occupies vis-a-vis history and the world.
Christians still not getting it after all these years. The liberal view is that since there is no fixed meaning to existence, it is up to humans to define what that meaning is. The liberal system allows each individual to live according to their own private conception of the good, instead of being bogged down in a nauseating conformism and lack of pluralism.
Indulgence in the passions, satisfaction of the appetite— which Christianity rightly moderates— is to the liberal the only drive worth pursuing.

>>22283179
>The worldview of the modern liberal is nothing more than a drowsy lack of commitment concerning what he is, what his life means, and the relation he occupies vis-a-vis history and the world.
Christians still not getting it after all these years. The liberal view is that since there is no fixed meaning to existence, it is up to humans to define what that meaning is. The liberal system allows each individual to live according to their own private conception of the good, instead of being bogged down in a nauseating conformism and lack of pluralism.

>>22284022
>The liberal view is that since there is no fixed meaning to existence, it is up to humans to define what that meaning is.
That is the exact same thing he said, except using different words. The only difference between the two of you is that while you drank the kool-aid, he properly drew out the implications of what that view means, i.e. humans becoming enslaved by their base-level desires.

>>22284751
>>22284022
>i.e. humans becoming enslaved by their base-level desires.
The evidence of which by this point is so mind-numbingly obvious only the most daft and insincere will deny.

>>22274348

If Catholicism embraces universalism then it will obliterate itself. Why become a Catholic if you're going to get to heaven anyway? Why follow any moral code whatsoever? It's like an even gayer version of Calvinism.

>>22274348
The Catholic Church has always held that people who are ignorant of Christ through no fault of their own but still observe the dictates of their God-given conscience will not be judged for their unbelief. Nobody ever thought unbaptised babies go to eternal punishment; rather, they theorised that they go to limbo, which is a pleasant, paradise-like place of Hell, but do not attain the Beatific Vision.

Christ explicitly said that very few people attain eternal life. Your egalitarian spirit is foreign to Christianity.

>>22284879
So be it then, but don't ask me to admire a God who allows such a cosmic tragedy to take place. Evil.

>>22284858
Altruism. There are more reasons to do something than out of fear of pain or want for reward.
If we are Gods children maybe he wants us to grow up, and have souls which truly understand the good and work toward it. That could explain the need for such a doctrine to exist, to teach children at their level.