- Joined
- Apr 7, 2025
Pointing out that the ecumenist post Vatican II Popes are obvious apostates is not "culture war".
That's a bold charge. Steel man your own argument, as you've stated in my quote, or I won't bother engaging with you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pointing out that the ecumenist post Vatican II Popes are obvious apostates is not "culture war".
At least its not Anglican. That's fucking satanic at this point.It's been over for something like 70 years (in reality a lot longer, but about 70 from the tradcath perspective).
Conservative Catholics absolutely will not allow themselves to see the forest for the trees. They'll tie themselves into knots to justify how Pope Climate-Sins Pachamama-Gay-Blessing-But-Not-Actually-Gay-Blessing-Don't-Worry-Guys XVCMLIIIII technically didn't violate canon 14,926,602,745,592 (which you'd need to prove in a court of law to show that he's a public apostate) by gassing up Buddhists as having "precious spiritual treasures".
They just care that he's not "woke" in a Prager U sense, but if he is don't worry because it's not Ex Cathedra (as though infallibility and defection were the same question).
It's the Qanon religion, and I say this as someone who really likes a lot of Catholics.
So what. Romney was a republican. He was a cuck and a sellout.Prepare for the Great Sneeding
View attachment 7336001
What bad-faith, tired jabs. Infallibility doesn’t apply to Honorius’ private letters. His comments on Monothelitism were criticized for negligence, not heresy. The council of Constantinople anathematized Honorius posthumously for failing to suppress heresy, not for teaching it. This does not contradict infallibility. The Church’s consistent teaching against Monothelitism since then proves this.Insults are all you have. There's no way to defend Roman Catholicism unless you're already in the crab-trap.
They could start by recognizing that Papal Infallibility is obviously not true, considering that Honorius was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council for Monothelitism. They could also explain how Pope Leo III erecting the Nicene Creed without the filioque on silver tablets outside the crypt of St. Peter's Basilica with the inscription "For love and defense of the Orthodox Faith" wasn't "Ex Cathedra".
They could also admit that Vatican 1 was an obvious political response to the political changes and revolutions of the 19th century (consolidating what power they still had), just as Vatican II coincided with the Vatican's realignment with Western powers after WWII (which is why post Vatican II Catholicism is just a giant NGO crab-walking into oblivion).
If you're aware, they were aware.
If you welcome debate, then you can respond to this post and the few I've linked to regarding Nostra Aetate.
The Anglicans haven't even managed to get a new Archbishop since the start of the year. Watch their King convert to Islam and the 'Anglican Church' destroy itself.At least its not Anglican. That's fucking satanic at this point.
And you sellout Christ for temporal affairs. He only voted Republican one time in 2024So what. Romney was a republican. He was a cuck and a sellout.
I don't think this is true, I found evidence that at least one is baptized according to him, and nothing either way on the other two.Remember Vance hasn’t even baptized his own children to keep his Pagan wife happy
Mmm that's basedAnd you sellout Christ for temporal affairs. He only voted Republican one time in 2024
Noooo Stalker Child, it is you who will cope and sneed, enjoy my PrayersYeah this guy is a fucking retard.
View attachment 7336002View attachment 7336005View attachment 7336006
View attachment 7335999
I cant wait to hear MORE cope from you zealous idiots. HAVE FUN, you only have to wait 15 more years to roll the (stacked) dice again
Now I'm starting to wonder what Vance brought to his meeting with Francis.Prepare for the Great Sneeding
View attachment 7336001
Tapping the signView attachment 7273795Seriously Guys, he’s not going to listen or care, there is no thread moderator so of course we’re going to get retards like him. Just downvote and ignore them going forward.
NON EXPEDIT!
BY PAPAL DECREE OF I, BISHOP LOCAL FARMER, HEREBY DECLARE ANATHEMA TO ANYONE RESPONDING TO FRENCH DIP, SHOULD FRENCH DIP SPEAK OUT OF LINE AGAIN WE WILL PHOTOSHOP HIS HANDS ON TO MORE AND MORE LUDICROUS PLACES
Sure. I'll link back to the Nostra Aetate discussion for more context.That's a bold charge. Steel man your own argument, as you've stated in my quote, or I won't bother engaging with you.
You make a point; you make a point.At least its not Anglican. That's fucking satanic at this point.
He's explicitly condemned as a heretic, and his condemnation as such was approved by Pope Leo II. Even if you wanted to somehow wriggle out of this being an infallibility issue (he's also explicitly condemned for disseminating the heresy among the faithful, whether the letters are private or not), the bigger problem is that he's a heretic condemned by an ecumenical council. The Pope is also supposed to be indefectible. Whether you teach or not, you can't be condemned as a Heretic and be the Pope.What bad-faith, tired jabs. Infallibility doesn’t apply to Honorius’ private letters. His comments on Monothelitism were criticized for negligence, not heresy. The council of Constantinople anathematized Honorius posthumously for failing to suppress heresy, not for teaching it. This does not contradict infallibility. The Church’s consistent teaching against Monothelitism since then proves this.
On what basis do you say that it lacks all three of those, or that he didn't intend it as dogmatic? Is it just because that interpretation allows you to preserve your paradigm, or do you have some kind of evidence that a guy putting a doctrinal definition (the creed) on big silver tablets for "defense of the Orthodox faith" wasn't intending that to be universal, binding, and definitive?Leo's filioque omission was to avoid scandal, not a denial of theological truth, i.e., it was diplomatic, not dogmatic, and does not meet the criteria for an ex cathedra statement. It lacks universal scope, doctrinal definition, and binding intent, and was not definitive/irrevocable.
I'm not catholic so I had to look this one up. I read a bunch of materials that explained the competing doctrines as jesus having one will vs. a human will subordinate to a second divine will. but none of the sources say why this mattered - is this a purely doctrinal abstract argument like arianism or did those monothelitism entail different ethical or political positions than dyothelitism?Monothelitism
I'll link back to the Nostra Aetate discussion for more context.
Every Pope since Vatican II has operated in-line with Nostra Aetate, which affirms that Muslims worship the God of Abraham. It also affirms that other pagan religions also worship God, although with imperfections and misunderstandings. The joint prayer with Muslims (in mosques), Buddhists, and other religions, as well as the frequent assertions that these traditions have "precious spiritual treasures", publicly and consistently demonstrates this orientation.