Thread 18133918

how's this guy so unremarkable that there's people out there who think francis is still pope?

>>18133918 (OP)
We will see him dogmatically declare homosexuality to be a moral good

>>18133943
He can't do that

Who the fuck wants a woke american pope, seriously. Leftist don't care and conservatives don't like him
Vatican boomera are retarded

>>18133963
>Who the fuck wants a woke american pope, seriously. Leftist don't care and conservatives don't like him

they wanted a pope from Americas. Found this guy who is from America and worked as missionary in South America. They thought best of both worlds and picked him.

>>18133950
Says who? Your private interpretation? Who are you to argue with the Church, Protestant?

>>18134002
The doctrine of Papal infalibility says that he cant do that.

>>18133918 (OP)
That's a power level hiding crusader in disguise if I ever saw one

>>18133943
This would be so based as it would make Romecucks seethe so hard. It would be the ultimate Gigachad move.

>>18134158
So the Pope is only infallible if he doesn't disagree with you?

>>18133918 (OP)
not historical

>>18134198
>So the Pope is only infallible if he doesn't disagree with you?
Yes.

>>18134227
Based Henry VIII mindset.

>>18134198
He can't infallibly say something that is opposite to Scripture and the consistent 2,000 years old moral teaching of the Church.

Papal infalibility is more of a negative thing (he will be impeded of saying heresy in ex cathedra content) than a positive one (whatever he says is right)

>>18134265
Who determines what is and isn't heresy? You aren't making any sense. If the Pope is infallible then if he makes a statement ex cathedra it wouldn't be heresy because it is an infallible statement.

>>18133918 (OP)
Christsisters..

>>18134198
that official tradcath doctrine since that french Bishop who got excommunicated by polack pope

>>18134352
The Pope needs to infallibly state that it's Ok to be trans but if you are gay and not trans it's a sin. That way he utterly btfos Tradcaths and Faggots at the same time.

>>18133918 (OP)
NOT LIKE THIS

>>18133918 (OP)
NOT LIKE THIS CHRISTSISTERS..

>>18134340
You didn't understand my point. The Holy Spirit in a supernatural way wouldn't allow the Pope to declare ex-Cathedra something that goes against Scripture and the perennial moral teaching of the Church.
This has nothing to do with me.

If the Pope tried to declare ex-Cathedra that love is love and that Sodomy not only is not a sinful behavior but is good, the Holy Spirit would stop him.

>>18134389
Ok. But if he did declare this you would accept that the Holy Spirit commanded it correct?

>>18134389
What about when the Pope kisses Muslim men on the lips?

>>18134390
He won't declare it because the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow it.

>but in a hypothetical
If he did do that and the Holy Spirit didn't stop him, this would mean the Catholic Church is false.

>>18134398
What of Jesus came back and said being gay was good? Would you become an atheist?

>>18134346
>>18134388
How do christkeks cope?
I can tell you how
Not REAL christianity
jew
jeet
larpagan
atheist
reddit

>>18134403
No, but Jesus wouldn't say that.

Any Christian who believes Sodomy is not a sin is poorly educated in Christian morality.

>>18134409
If he did would you accept it?

>>18134453
He wouldn't do it because it is a logical impossibility. This is like talking about a square circle.

>>18134409
Jesus is God and as such omnipresent and omnipotent. If he wants to say being gay is ok than its all to him

>>18134465
What is impossible? God can say whatever he wants.

>>18134467
>>18134469
You have an "old man in the Sky with super powers" view of how God works. This isn't how God works.

Paul quite explicitly said in the Bible that Sodomy is a Sin. He went out of his way to create a new term for that. It is believed that the Bible is inerrant in terms of morals.
Also, you can logically see it in the Gospels that you need to deny yourself in order to follow Christ. If you live in a sexually indulgent way you are not doing so. You are not loving God above all, you are attaching yourself to the pleasures of the flesh.

Sin is about distancing yourself from God. Acting hedonistically does that.

>>18134496
>Paul created a new word
No he put two words together that had a space in the specific part of the LXX he was quoting. You sound like you worship the Idol of hating gays rather than God. You are in error.

>>18134499
He created the word Arsenokoitai by joining two words. I don't know if you realize this, but many words are created this way. He was extremely explicit about this, he couldn't be more explicit.

And the early Christians always interpreted him like this. They spoke the same language he did, lived in the same culture he did, had the same philosophical assumptions he did and they understood it to mean exactly that. The Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church were in complete agreement on this.

>>18133918 (OP)
Because he is a demochristian fence sitter, a moderate centrist who does nothing but make completely bland and clorox washed statements with no meaning.
He doesn't take any position, his activity as a pope is just saying: "war is le bad" twice a week and that's it.

>>18134510
What if you learned that Paul didn't mean this. Would you become an atheist? It seems like this specific, not very important passage, is the only part of Christianity you care about. Demonstrating that you don't actually worship God.

>>18134527
Paul did mean this. And where in the heck did you take the view this is all I care?
Defending against a particular heresy doesn't mean you don't care about others. I would also say the same thing about a Pope having untrinitarian views or saying the Resurrection didn't happen.

>>18134670
Not my question. My question is: if this specific teaching were proven incorrect (perhaps by some kind of genuine divine revelation) would you accept that?

>>18134467
Can you show me where Jesus said anything of the kind sir?
>>18134697
It is impossible for the word of God to be incorrect, and it is abundantly clear about this.

>>18134709
So you worship the Bible not God?

>>18134265
>He can't infallibly say something that is opposite to Scripture and the consistent 2,000 years old moral teaching of the Church.
Who are you to override the authoritative teaching of the Church with your private interpretation?
Papists say things like this without realizing the scenario they decry as impossible has already been true for many centuries. Right now (and for centuries) Romanism has been full of heretical novelties which clearly contradict both scripture and tradition, such as the sacrifice of the mass, worship of the saints, and salvation by good works. These can be condemned as easily by the church fathers as by the scriptures. There is little difference between these and the pope justifying sodomy. But in the other cases, they defend these heretical unbiblical innovations because they approve of it, it is not that it is Rome's tradition so much as their own. When the pope embraces sodomy (and he will) it will be completely impossible for you to resist it on any grounds without contradicting your opposition to us. When this day comes I have no doubt many papists will leave their church, but I also expect there will be a few left who defend homosexual relationships as "sacred apostolic tradition" because irreformable Rome has spoken and the case is closed.
Become Protestant

>>18134718
No.

>>18134697
This is impossible to happen.
Public Revelation ended with the death of last Apostle. When John the Apostle died, Public Revelation ended and the entirety of truth was revealed.
Nothing can contradict Public Revelation.

The Pope can't do that. Churches that do this just show themselves as unserious Churches not protected by the Holy Spirit. Which is what happened in the Anglican Church.

>>18134739
The Church is not in contradiction with Scripture because some poorly educated anally retentive pervert in Germany said so 1500 years after the Apostolic era.

By the way, the fall of Lutheranism shows what happens in a Church that is not protected by the Holy Spirit. You now have married Lesbian Bishops.

>>18134760
>The Church is not in contradiction with Scripture because some poorly educated anally retentive pervert in Germany said so 1500 years after the Apostolic era.
The LGBT Church is not in contradiction with Scripture because some poorly educated rando on 4chan said so 2000 years after the Apostolic era. You see every argument made against us will be made against you, because you have no grounding to reform the church. You say if the pope dogmatically taught manifest heresy, then the Roman church would be false. I could not agree more, now you understand our separation.
>By the way, the fall of Lutheranism shows what happens in a Church that is not protected by the Holy Spirit. You now have married Lesbian Bishops
As if those atheists have anything to do with us. No, that's what happens when your church does not follow sola scriptura, and that's why you will see the same thing in Rome by the end of this century.

>>18134812
The Church has always been consistent about this. We have Apostles, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Councils, etc. You guys have "everyone interprets the Bible the way they want", which is how you end up with Lesbian married Bishops as the heads of large Lutheran National Churches and the Sparkle Creed.
Your pride in deciding that you know best didn't protect you, it seems.

>>18134832
>The Church has always been consistent about this. We have Apostles, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Councils, etc
So say we against you. Sola scriptura is not the enemy but the preserver and purifier of holy tradition. It is through scripture alone that we may distinguish human and demonic inventions which have crept in over the centuries from that which has been passed down from the apostles of the Lord.
>You guys have "everyone interprets the Bible the way they want"
No, we don't. We have never said this, we have never told you this, this is what our enemies have falsely accused us of, we have always denied it. The Geneva Bible was printed with a hermeneutical tutorial on how to interpret scripture, and one of its instructions was never to interpret in a way which would contradict the Creed. This is mere calumny.
>which is how you end up with Lesbian married Bishops
No it isn't, this is true in your head but when you step out into the real world and see how the liberals justify their actions it isn't by interpreting scripture but attacking its authority, by denying it's the word of God, and exalting human wisdom. These people don't believe in sola scriptura, they don't even believe there is a scriptura.
>Your pride in deciding that you know best
You mean like your pride in deciding you know best about the LGBT? Just by saying there is a scenario where you would leave Rome as heretical and condemned you are in principle rejecting their authority claims.

>>18134857
Do you think Jesus chose Peter just so he would write two Letters and that "actually, only Matthew and John were the really important Apostles"?
Who do you think compiled the Books of the Bible? Who has preserved the Bible for 1500 years? Do you think the likes of Ignatius and Polycarp Who studied under John himself are not good guides? Because I have seen a Lutheran here more or less saying they are retards and that he himself could read the Bible with his own eyes and reach the right conclusions.

Also, tell me, weren't Liberal Lutherans the ones who were the biggest modernists? The ones who denied miracles and the ones who started the Higher Critical Method where it is presupposed the Gospels were written after 70AD because Jesus just couldn't predict the fall of the Temple since there are no miracles and that would be a miracle? Who said "actually, there was no multiplication of the fish and bread, this is just talking about community"?

>Just by saying there is a scenario where you would leave Rome as heretical and condemned you are in principle rejecting their authority claims.
I very explicitly said that he would never do so because the Holy Spirit would never allow it to happen.
That in a fictional example where the Pope did so so would be a sign the Church is not protected by error and is basically just like the Norwegian Lutheran Church.

But again, this is impossible to happen because the Holy Spirit does protect the Church.

>>18134745
Of God literally told you X and the bible says Y and you continue to believe Y you worship the bible.
>>18134752
So you are denying the resurrection of the dead and aren't Christian got it.

>>18134857
You are arguing Nuda Scripture anon. Sola Scriptura still uses the creeds, Church tradition, and Church fathers.

>>18134900
And of course you concluded I'm saying nuda scriptura and we shouldn't use creeds, tradition or fathers because I said we claim the fathers, believe the creed, and preserve tradition?
>>18134888
>Of God literally told you X and the bible says Y and you continue to believe Y you worship the bible.
The bible is the word of God. What the bible says God says, what contradicts the bible is not from God.

>>18134887
>Do you think Jesus chose Peter
Jesus did not choose Peter as pope (which is a fantasy of the middle ages)
>Who do you think compiled the Books of the Bible? Who has preserved the Bible for 1500 years?
God.
>Do you think the likes of Ignatius and Polycarp Who studied under John himself are not good guides?
I think they were great guides, I think furthermore 1. To the extent they were good or not good it is not because of who they knew but because of their commitments to God's word, 2. Very little of what they said exists today, so what they could guide *us* about is quite narrow, 3. There is no doubt that if they were alive today they would flock to our banner. Indeed, as these ancient men knew nothing at all of Romanism, but lived and died before a single one of its distinctives, you should believe they were very poor guides if you are a Romanist.
>I have seen a Lutheran here
OK, I doubt you're accurately representing him, but even if so it doesn't really mean anything.
>weren't Liberal Lutherans the ones who were the biggest modernists?
Yes. Also I am not Lutheran but Reformed if that's why you keep talking about Lutherans (not that I count liberals as Lutheran, liberalism and Christianity are religions in contest).
>I very explicitly said that he would never do so
Yes, and then you addressed a scenario where it happened. That the scenario was hypothetical is exactly my point. If this happened tomorrow you would reject Rome as condemned by God and that is in substance no different from our Reformation. You are functioning on sola scriptura by saying that, to reject sola scriptura would be to say that you would believe what the church says.
>this is impossible to happen
It happened in 1545.

>>18134340
It would be very hard for the Vatican to argue such a thing is infallible when it directly taught the opposite for centuries. In theory they cannot do that and many theologians and priests would probably hold the pronouncement invalid.
In practice you are right there is little to stop a pope from doing this, but it would probably cause a major schism so it is unlikely.

>>18133943
He has been very clear his entire career that homosexuality is a sin.
Why would he change his mind now?

>>18134346
>Christian condemns hatred
why is this a surprise to anyone?
The pope during WW2 protected the Jews of Rome from the Holocaust

>>18134346
tolerance for Christ killers is damned heresy

>>18134960
>Yes, and then you addressed a scenario where it happened. That the scenario was hypothetical is exactly my point. If this happened tomorrow you would reject Rome as condemned by God

Ah, fuck off. You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the displeasure of talking to here.
I already said it was impossible for it to happen because the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit.

"What if you woke up 20ft tall?"
"That is impossible to happen, but if it happened, that would mean I would be a giant"
"So, you believe you are a giant?"

No, I don't. Fuck you.

Also, it is nice how this dishonest fucker did this all over the thread

"What if Paul was wrong?"
"What if Jesus came back and told everyone to be sodomites?"
"Don't you think Paul actually didn't mean what he meant?"

>>18133943
>We will see him dogmatically declare homosexuality to be a moral good
Explain

>>18133943
Impossible and would falsify Catholicism

>>18133918 (OP)
He's just a boomer who doesn't want to offend anyone but it's pretty clear to me that he's not a Francis II, is more conservative, and more sympathetic towards the TLM. We're going to see a Pius XIII eventually and Leo is just our first step

>>18134956
Why is God bound by his alleged statements. Sounds like you are going to be a hell enjoyer.

>>18134388
>NOOOO HOW DARE YOU BEHAVE LIKE YOUR PROPHET

>>18135520
I read Paul in a Jewish voice. The NSRVUE captures it perfectly. He sounds like Jeff Goldblum.

>>18133918 (OP)
Low key sus this nigga never had sex with a shorty.

>>18133943
>noooo consensual adults being together effects my chud life

>>18133918 (OP)
I thought Karol was still the pope. How about that?

>>18135604
Imagine the tradcath tears. I hope the next one bans their gay Tridentine mass they made to cope over losing 50% of European Christianity in a decade.

>>18133918 (OP)
What about that German co-Pope? Is he still lurking in the shadows too?

>>18135971
He allegedly died on New Years Eve 2022. So he is 100% still molesting children.

>>18135604
faggots can reproduce only by turning out kids

>>18135529
Good ol' bald, Saul Goldberg.....the greatest apostle of Christ......whom he never actually met. The original "trust me, bro" hustle.

>>18134496
"Our (sky) Father who art in heaven (the sky), hallowed be thy name."

Literal "Deus Pater"/Sky Father language in their most holy prayer, which itself "rises" to the lord "most high" who bestows his blessings from "above".


/thread


I win.

>>18136765
Brain damage.

>>18135604
>consensual adults being together

>>18134389
>the Holy Spirit would stop him
lol, lmao even. Who do you think the holy spirit is in reference to?

>>18133918 (OP)
In Italy there is a old staying: "After a slim Pope, a fat Pope". The conclave likes to elect a new Pope with a personality very different from the previous one, and with not too similar ideas and values outside dogmas. Its one of their tricks to keep the institution stable

>>18137396
So is this a Pedo or a Faggot Pope?

Do Atheists think they are being witty when they write things like this? >>18137473

>>18133963
Before that it was a woke argentinian pope.

If I was forced to be christian then I would chose a conservative lutheran denomination which doesn't allow women priests. The catholics are slaves to the popes and they become more progressive over time. I hate Jay Dyer too much to ever consider orthodox christianity and groups like the baptits are too insane especially with the wine stuff.

>>18137508
It's a serious question. Francis was anti-Faggot and Benny was a Pedo. So is Leo a Pedo or a Faggot?

>>18137513
>I would choose LCMS or WELS
What is the point of becoming Christian if you are still going to be a hell enjoyer?

>>18133918 (OP)
Because his Papacy just started? I remember as late as 2014 people still thought Benedict was the Pope too

>>18137533
I'm not american.

>>18137617
Join your established church or enjoy hell. Doesn't matter if it's Catholic, or Liberal or Orthodox/Gay. If it's established you have to submit.

>>18137531
You are defaming a good man. Benedict has never been accused by anyone of ever breaking his vows. And he had enemies who would like nothing more than to throw his name into the mud.

I know that you feel good about sounding edgy, but I would really like you to take a good look at yourself and think about what you did.

>>18137513
>The catholics are slaves to the popes and they become more progressive over time.
Not really. The Pope is respected due to his position, but no one is their slave. They always had significant opposition in the Church.

Also, the Church is turning less liberal over time, lately.

>>18137806
Benny was defending pedos that's why he had to step down. Francis was clearly neither gay nor a pedo. So my question is then is Leo a Gay or a pedo?

>>18137877
You are defaming him again. He was responsible for the reforms that fixed a large part of the abuse problems when he worked under JP II. He didnt step down due to defending anyone, but due to personal reasons.

Tell me, what do you gain by lying in order to defame a guy who was a pretty decent person.
First you accused him of not following his celibacy vows, now of this. What do you gain by doing this? Do you think you are being a good or cool person when you are doing this edgy shit?
Do you think anyone here will

>>18137984
I don't appreciate him covering up child molesters. It isn't edge to criticize someone for covering up the sexual abuse of children and you are a monster for asserting so.

>>18138001
He didn't do so.
You lied twice. The first time for saying that he broke his vows, which you now have retreated from. The second time for claiming he covered abuse, which he never did.

Tell me, are you a honest person? Do you think you are a good person when you falsely accuse someone of crimes?
This kind of intellectual dishonest in trying to input crimes Benedict XVI didnt commit... are you a liberal journalist?

>>18138157
The Pope serves the devil and is ontologically evil.