>Are you homosexual, anon?
How do you respond without sounding gay?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>Are you homosexual, anon?
>Are you homosexual, anon?
How do you respond without sounding gay?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Yes
Just start kissin' instead of talking him to death.
why don't you suck my dick and find out homosexual
It's been years since I saw this show. What was the point of his hatred of gays? Did that plotline got dropped or did it go anywhere? I don't remember.
that they're an abomination in the eyes of the lord
He was following the conservative route because he had abandonment issues so anything progressive was a no-no.
Literally incel pope with "Vatican has fallen. Billions must excommunicated"
>incel
Seek help, transphobic piece of shit
he was a chud pope
He was actually Catholic. More than can be said about the current pope.
he was actually Christian and not the current anti-Pope tier cuck Francis
What you're doing is a heresy against God just so you know.
Kindly have a nice day you disgusting fake subhumans
These aren’t Christians, they’re arrogant atheists pulling the typical “well we’ll use your rules against you :)” that women and limp wrists think is clever until they get smacked in their mouths. They always shut up very quickly after that
I am protestant Christian.
Fricking heretic
>Kindly have a nice day you disgusting fake subhumans
>says the pious holy man
>“well we’ll use your rules against you :)”
Yes, you've got some explaining to do when you meet God. About telling people to commit suicide and your violent vengeful tendencies.
>the rules apply to everyone but me
You use them as a cudgel on everyone else, despite the bible saying very explicitly that judgement and revenge are for the Lord and ONLy the Lord to enact, and yet the moment it's time for you to follow them
>ooooooooooh they're just using my own rules agains meh aaaaa the rules are just bullshit now
"And ye shall know them by their works" homosexual.
God chose Francis for a reason anon
God didn't choose him, Vatican politics did. the pole reigns until he died. Noone questioned that the last Pope stepped down and then this ultrahomosexual took over? Really?
God chose the Vatican anon
trust the plan
>two more millenia
I've left the church and faith completely because of that fricking homosexual
You shouldn't risk your salvation over a bad pope, stay in the church and stay strong. Don't follow him if he goes into heresy, basically don't be a hyperpapalist like those idiots online that defend his obvious heresy.
Good news is that he may be an antipope, maybe. And he's valid we're looking at eschatology.
>You shouldn't risk your salvation over a bad pope,
You dont get to decide if a pope is "good' or " bad". Its not a democracy.
He's an awful pope and ironic that your bring up democracy because he seems to think our faith is a democracy to invite non-catholics to vote against our faith and morals. Stop burying your head in the sand.
Catholics are so based. It's israeli propaganda to get people to hate them and npcs fall for it.
why do i read so much that is the opposite this? final verdict, is he based or not?
>why do i read so much that is the opposite this?
Because the media takes some of his quotes out of context while ignoring everything else he said on the subject and then the supposed "trads" swallow everything as fact for some reason while saying the same media is untrustworthy
the media likes to report when hes liberal not conservative
simple as
the media wants to turn you against the pope
You know the pope could very easily shutdown thw liberal media in an instant, right? But he doesn't. He could easily answer the dubia (he should anyways because it's his role to answer it) and remove any and all ambiguity.
Why doesn't he just do that?
>inb4 "it's not ambiguous "
It's ambiguous enough that people are reporting something you claim isn't true, and second not all of us are rocket scientists and need more clear language. That would be fantastic and actually help the church.
devil post
Explain? Why doesn't he end all ambiguities. It's actually pretty simple. We get the media to stop misrepresenting him (as you claim) and we also get some much needed clarification. What is evil about that?
Where's the ambiguity? He already said gay unions won't be blessed for example, it's not even up for debate
Then why is the media reporting otherwise? And why do we have a dubia pending? Because it's not clear.
We're not all smart like you, the Pope should make it clear for us feeble minded within the church. Or are we not good enough for that.
>Then why is the media reporting otherwise?
Because the media is dishonest
>And why do we have a dubia pending?
Ask the cardinals
>the Pope should make it clear for us feeble minded within the church.
He already did, all he said in the first dubia response is that they should bless people who want to live a holier life which obviously doesn't involve homosexuality which he stated is a sin multiple times. It's as simple as looking at his past statements and reading his full response.
We need a simple yes or no, not long form ambiguity.
Yes or no and all of this misrepresentation goes away, it's so easy so why doesn't he want to do it?
>We need a simple yes or no,
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-decree-same-sex-unions-cannot-bless-sin-077944750c975313ad253328e4cf7443
>“The Vatican left nothing on the table. The door has been slammed shut on the gay agenda,” Donohue wrote on the League’s website, calling the document “the most decisive rejection of those efforts ever written.”
Now with this in mind read very carefully his dubia response:
>For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that ***do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage***. Because when a blessing is requested, ***one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better***, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better.
That's not yes or no, why doesn't he do it.
Now you're being dishonest, saying that homosexual unions are sinful and cannot be blessed is a plain NO
I'm glad you're saying it but you're not the pope. We need to hear it from his eminence, literally this whole debacle and his detractors can go away in an instant. Why not do it?
Not all Christians are Catholics. Would that actually matter to most of them?
We're talking about Catholicism, if you're a Christian but no Catholic you should unify to the church that Jesus founded. The one true Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.
We need a resounding "no" clear and concise if only to just stop all the detractors from making a scandal out of nothing. This situation is entirely in Pope Francis's hands and he doesn't want to clear it up. Why not?
I know about Matt 16:18 and what the idea of the Primacy of Peter is saying, but that shit is cap.
>We need a resounding "no" clear and concise
He already said no, that's the point, the people making this media circus are just ignoring that for their own agenda.
>He already said no
He did not, he needs to say "no". He hasn't said it.
>the people making this media circus are just ignoring that for their own agenda.
I agree, but Francis could make it all go away with one word in two seconds but chooses not to. Instead he just allows this to become a scandal for no reason.
>The Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response to a question about whether Catholic clergy have the authority to bless gay unions. The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”
>The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”
>The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”
>The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”
Do you need a neon sign with that over the Vatican?
He needs to say it loud and clear in the dubia submitted by the cardinals. "No" signed Pope Francis. That's it.
I mean he should be doing it anyways because that's his job in the church, if there's doubt he should clarify it for his flock.
Fine, whatever, but let's say he doesn't, does it change anything? Blessing gay unions is still banned, dubia or no dubia
>but let's say he doesn't, does it change anything?
Yes because he's actively sowing doubt in a contentious topic within and without the church, especially because he could easily make it go away. His supposed to guide his flock, not let them wander aimlessly or bicker among themselves. And this is only one issue, don't even get me started on "heal me with your mouth" Fernandez's appoinment.
He'll probably address it anyway. And it's not that huge of a deal since the blessing is still banned regardless, the ones who will do such blessings were already doing them anyway (and should be punished).
>the ones who will do such blessings were already doing them anyway (and should be punished).
Yea, and guess what, Pope Francis has done NOTHING to the disobedient clergy in Germany and Belgium. There's absolutely no reason why a pontiff should be this confusing.
This is the one thing I'll absolutely concede, he's too soft. But I don't think that makes him a heretic, just incompetent in this regard.
Too soft? No he seems quite vindictive and nasty against towards clergy he personally doesn't like while turning a blind eye to others and promoting his friends.
The answer should be adressed with "yes" or "no" and then he can add words of wisdom to the answer. He's done neither of those things here.
>He didn't say "no" he said "negative"
¿Que?
I believe that's from 2021, the new dubia is specifically about confirming that the synod can't change the faith and morals of the church. He hasn't given a "no/negative" to that.
>the new dubia is specifically about confirming that the synod can't change the faith and morals of the church.
The synod by definition cannot do that, it's an advisory body. And considering pope Francis already said no to gay marriage, blessing gay unions and women priests you can rule these out.
You can just read the response and see the answer is negative on its own, if you look at his past statements it'll just confirm it further
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responds-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html
The fact that people are taking bits of it and running wild doesn't change that
>inb4 he should reiterate that it's no
Yeah yeah, let's not start all over again
I read it, it doesn't say "no" just a long answer about what marriage is and being charitable (good and I agree). But it's not a no, and there also a couple of really strange parts in there too.
>The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called "marriage." ~~*( Other forms of union realize it only in "a partial and analogous way" (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called "marriage."*~~)
>Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or ~~*more persons*~~, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
Explain wtf this means.
To me a layman, I'm interpreting that we shouldn't be judgemental but charitable and understanding to [homosexuals other ,etc] yes I fully agree with this, on board with you so far.
But you lose me with
>other forms of unions
And
>forms of blessings...one or more persons
This sounds like it can be abused into legitimizing (which is erroneous since the church can't ever do this) same sex blessings as an "alternative " to marriage.
These people need our charity and that includes not falsely blessing their sin.
>Explain wtf this means.
It means that it might look like marriage (two people in a union) but isn't
>This sounds like it can be abused into legitimizing (which is erroneous since the church can't ever do this) same sex blessings as an "alternative " to marriage.
Read further
>it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
He's talking about blessing not in the sense of approval but of helping the person "live better". Now considering the pope already stated homosexuality is a sin, what do you think that means?
I think it's confusing and ambiguous which is why we need the "no" from Pope Francis.
It doesn't need to be this confusing. This is on his hands if he wants this scandal to end and he should discipline the clergy in Germany to prove he means what he says.
>I think it's confusing and ambiguous
It's only confusing and ambiguous if you completely divorce it from the context, the teaching of the church and Francis' own teaching on the subject. Also, I'd like to remind you that this dubia was private at first, that is, not meant for the public but for the cardinals, who should be familiar with all of this.
>he should discipline the clergy in Germany to prove he means what he says.
Agree but it's also a risky move and could cause another schism, I think that's partly the reason he's avoiding it
>Also, I'd like to remind you that this dubia was private at first, that is, not meant for the public but for the cardinals, who should be familiar with all of this.
Yes and they made it public because he didn't give a yes and no answer before the Synod and they wanted to be absolutely transparent with the flock of Christ, the laymen.
A yes or no removes any and all ambiguity and is the prudent thing to do.
The fact that you and I have different interpretations proves that it's too ambiguous. He can keep his whole explanation but he should preface with "no/negative". Which he hasn't.
>Agree but it's also a risky move and could cause another schism, I think that's partly the reason he's avoiding it
There already is a schism they're acting opposed to the church and her teachings, and Pope Francis is not shy about disciplining clergy so I don't see why he hasn't done anything about it. Plus the church in Germany has been plummeting since the German Bishops have fallen into disobedience. This whole thing is a mess.
>they wanted to be absolutely transparent with the flock of Christ, the laymen.
Funny you give them the benefit of charitable judgement but not the pope.
>A yes or no removes any and all ambiguity and is the prudent thing to do.
He already said no in 2021, the cardinals did a major dick move if you'll excuse my language and it was wholly unnecessary, they're the ones to blame for all controversy. The pope's answer was for them who should be able to read it in the context I spoke of, the fact that they didn't tells me they probably had an agenda.
>There already is a schism they're acting opposed to the church and her teachings
The problem is if Francis excommunicates them and the whole German church goes into schism, it would be a major blow to the faithful there. I honestly don't know the solution here.
>The problem is if Francis excommunicates them and the whole German church goes into schism, it would be a major blow to the faithful there. I honestly don't know the solution here.
They already are in schism, why do you refuse to see this. The Pope is not shy about disciplining, why does he turn a blind eye while people are led astray.
>Funny you give them the benefit of charitable judgement but not the pope.
Giving laymen transparency in the church is good, especially after decades of covering up sexual and liturgical abuse and keeping it behind closed doors. Btw Rupnik is still out and free and still a priest after raping nuns and comitting sexual acts with a chalice on an altar, another blind eye from Pope Francis.
>He already said no in 2021
Different dubia and it nothing has changed he can say "no/negative " again easily.
>the cardinals did a major dick move if you'll excuse my language and it was wholly unnecessary, they're the ones to blame for all controversy
Not very charitable of you, but this whole controversy can be gone in an instant if he said "no/negative".
>The pope's answer was for them who should be able to read it in the context I spoke of, the fact that they didn't tells me they probably had an agenda.
The agenda to put the Pope under the spotlight and make him answer to his flock that he will defend the faith and morals of the church. You shouldn't be against this as a Catholic.
>The Pope is not shy about disciplining, why does he turn a blind eye while people are led astray.
Ask the Holy Spirit. Every Pope's actions are part His Guidance for ends only God knows. Even Rodrigo Borgia's incest bastards were part of The Plan. Same for the Cadaver Synod.
>Ask the Holy Spirit. Every Pope's actions are part His Guidance
Absolutely wrong, the Holy Spirit guides his imminence but this does not mean that the Pope cooperates at every turn. He's not "possessing" the Pope.
So this was the thing the whole time? You got psyoped into thinking part of the Holy Spirit's plan is to scandalize and lead people away? No, this is wrong. The Holy Spirit will never work against the teachings of the church.
>Absolutely wrong, the Holy Spirit guides his imminence but this does not mean that the Pope cooperates at every turn
That's not how cooperation with God works. Satan is in active rebellion and still technically cooperates because God's the grand strategist. Everything Satan does to reject cooperation is just him ultimately wasting his time because God already won WELL BEFORE even Satan's fall. Pagan kings who conquered Israel and destroyed the Temple were cooperating with God's Plan.
Oh, yea I get what you mean - I agree with you there. Let me rephrase, not everything the pope does is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I forget which saint said it but "The worst punishment God can send to mankind is bad clergy" and it's a good point. I don't despair btw, I know it's sin because I know God won and is in control. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to react when something bad is occurring. That's why it's important that no matter what, stay in the church.
Well do be careful that you don't potentially end up a Pharisee calling the actual Messiah a blasphemous heretic because you were certain you knew when someone was opposing God's Law 100% of the time. Even the most anti-Christian israelites appreciate that Jesus' criticisms of Phariseeic Judaism are no longer a thing in modern Judaism. Tova Singer would certainly say that theres nothin immoral about healing on the Sabbath
>Well do be careful that you don't potentially end up a Pharisee calling the actual Messiah a blasphemous heretic because you were certain you knew when someone was opposing God's Law 100% of the time
That's a good point, thank you and pray for me. I aim to be more humble and sometimes I fail.
I just earnestly believe that the Holy Spirit will never inspire any clegry to change faith and morals. I submit to the pope but I will raise my hand if something doesn't seem right. I'd also give the same warning to the hyperpapalists who are equally as sure as me that they won't fall away.
>They already are in schism, why do you refuse to see this
Not officially.
>Giving laymen transparency in the church is good
Not when you're clearly trying to undermine the papacy, we only have the pope's full response because the Vatican published it, they published an edited version.
>Different dubia
So what? It was a definitive answer, there was no need to ask again
>Not very charitable of you, but this whole controversy can be gone in an instant if he said "no/negative".
Which he already did and the cardinals know he did, which would lead them to interpret his answer differently if they were honest
>The agenda to put the Pope under the spotlight and make him answer to his flock
Which he already did, the only reason they released this dubia was to create controversy before the synod
>Not officially
So basically anyone that questions Pope Francis on something he said is automatically a "schismatic" but doing literal schismatic things doesn't make it "official". They're disobeying the church, it's literally already a schism.
>they published an edited version.
Source? So they just removed the "yes/no" because....?
>there was no need to ask again
That's not how the church works, different dubia and needs an answer.
>Which he already did and the cardinals know he did, which would lead them to interpret his answer differently if they were honest
He did not give a "no" to the most recent dubia. Not very prudent.
>Which he already did, the only reason they released this dubia was to create controversy before the synod
Anon, the synod IS the controversy. There are bad agents in the synod that openly say they want to change the faith and morals of our church. And to laugh at our faces they're going to "vote" for it, as if our faith was a democracy. The whole thing is a perverse joke. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
>They're disobeying the church, it's literally already a schism.
Officially they're still under the pope even if disobedient, they're not in full schism
>Source? So they just removed the "yes/no" because....?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255534/cardinals-send-dubia-to-pope-francis-ahead-of-synod-on-synodality
>The cardinals declined the Register’s requests to review the pope’s July 11 response, as they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public.
Which is a lie because right after the Vatican published it they followed suit.
>That's not how the church works, different dubia and needs an answer.
Which he gave and should be interpreted in light of his past statements.
>He did not give a "no" to the most recent dubia.
He did.
>Anon, the synod IS the controversy.
It's not, the synod cannot change anything. All they'll do is give the pope their ideas, even the crazy ones, and the pope will make a decision. Now, like I said, if the pope already said that there will be no gay marriage, blessing gay unions and women priest then there will be no such thing.
>the pope will make a decision
On what exactly? He doesn't have the authority to change faith and morals or the deposit of faith.
>Officially they're still under the pope even if disobedient, they're not in full schism
At least one person has died since the Germans started giving their "blessings" to the homosexuals, and I'm not allknowing and I hope to God that He was merciful with their soul but chances are they're not in a great position. So basically someone that could have been saved now missed their chance because they were led to think the church supported them. And the Pope did nothing, how much is one soul worth? Is it worth it so the secular world won't get angry with you when you don't discipline the clergy? I pray for Pope Francis and his conscience, I'd feel very guilty if there was anything I could do within my power to save them.
>On what exactly? He doesn't have the authority to change faith and morals or the deposit of faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Bishops_in_the_Catholic_Church#
>So basically someone that could have been saved now missed their chance because they were led to think the church supported them.
God is merciful, don't worry. The eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox are in actual full schism, do you think they'll go to hell too? They have valid sacraments too
>>On what exactly? He doesn't have the authority to change faith and morals or the deposit of faith.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Bishops_in_the_Catholic_Church#
Yea so basically this thing is extra invalid because there are also non-Catholics and people against the church "voting".
>God is merciful, don't worry.
Something abused, I know God is merciful but there isn't nearly enough talk about proper repentance.
>do you think they'll go to hell too?
I don't know, I'm not God. All I know is that I'm not going to risk it for the biscuit because someone online says "don't worry about it bro". Hell is real, and it is not empty.
>this thing is extra invalid because there are also non-Catholics and people against the church "voting".
Are you saying the pope has no authority to seek advice from lay people?
>All I know is that I'm not going to risk it for the biscuit because someone online says "don't worry about it bro". Hell is real, and it is not empty.
Be honest, if a person is an honest righteous orthodox christian you don't believe they're going to hell
By the way, here's another example of what publicly calling the pope a heretic leads to
Good luck converting people with that.
Your israeli myths are thankfully dying out fast
And thankfully we follow the guy with a map out of the grave. Death has no meaning.
>Are you saying the pope has no authority to seek advice from lay people?
Never said that, some of us are even saying he should be more clear on what he says but he doesn't listen to us.
He also shouldn't seek advice from non Catholics or people against the church's teaching. The church is for the worship of Jesus Christ our God, not the god of the age, the world or any other ephemral thing. Anything else is in vain.
>Be honest, if a person is an honest righteous orthodox christian you don't believe they're going to hell
I hope that they don't. I do not know. Bro if it were up to me I'd be way more lenient, but I humble myself before God and remember that from His point of view I'm sure the effects of sin are absolutely monstrous on creation visibly and invisibly. So It doesn't really matter what I think, I'm human.
>By the way, here's another example of what publicly calling the pope a heretic leads to
>Good luck converting people with that.
The Pope is already needlessly driving people away, not sure I would have made a difference. I just pray to God for the grace that the faithful won't be scandalized to the point of leaving. And I pray for people of other religions to convert, God desires them to be in union with him and not worshipping false idols.
>He also shouldn't seek advice from non Catholics or people against the church's teaching.
I don't know about non-catholics there, but that doesn't mean he'll accept what they have to say, there's literally nothing to worry about.
>I just pray to God for the grace that the faithful won't be scandalized to the point of leaving
Do what's best and don't contribute then, spreading lies from anti-catholic """trads""" doesn't do good to anyone
>spreading lies from anti-catholic """trads""" doesn't do good to anyone
Says you as you bear false witness. The pontificate is the responsibility of the Pope, if he's not doing a good job that is on him.
>don't know about non-catholics there,
Yes, there are and they're trying to change the church. Openly saying it too.
>Says you as you bear false witness.
This is you
And what you said there are lies you're repeating, it's you who are bearing false witness to pope Francis, and that's a major mistake
>Yes, there are and they're trying to change the church. Openly saying it too.
And they won't, there will be no apostasy with this synod.
>there will be no apostasy with this synod.
I'm laminating this and putting it on my wall.
Frick the Synod to be honest. Proties in disguise, if the faithful go with the synod instead of Rome they might as well be excommunicated as the Synodal way is really fricking close to protestantism and heresy
>The Pope should give yes and no answers like he's a theology oracle instead of giving actually useful answers visibly grounded in theology
Now you're pissing me off
>The Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response to a question about whether Catholic clergy have the authority to bless gay unions. The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”
What else do you need?
Oh the poor cardinals lack interpretation skills? The answer is no, and you can't read it any other way both from internal evidence and external evidence from his past statements
>"The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called "marriage." (...) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities.(...) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage."
What about this is unclear? Do you need his holiness to attach that troony wojack with the rope around it's neck?
He has to say "no" for it to be clear, especially because popes are supposed to use "yes" or "no" answers for these questions.
There. Happy?
Not very charitable of you since it's a serious topic. But ok, keep going zoom zoom.
>being willfully ignorant about the popes intentions because he didn't use the word anon likes
>can't take a joke
>profound lack of humility
>complaining about muh charity despite not showing an ounce of it himself
Yeah, not sure if you're a troll or just a moronic heretic. Either way I've wasted enough time on you.
>profound lack of humility
about muh charity despite not showing an ounce of it himself
You're not self aware are you.
I haven't wasted my time on you anon, God bless.
Is this the new copium popesplainers are huffing now?
Maybe don't just read the headlines but actually see what he says and does, it should be more aparent than never right now. His synod on sodomy is already a giant dumpsterfire of heresy.
We've know for years since the shit that he's tried to push into the magesterium and the whole pachamama worship thing. He denies the title Vicar of Christ and thinks converting people to Christianity is disgusting.
Pray for his conversion, he's not "based". We get the pope we deserve, ultimately I believe this is a punishment straight from above for our transgressions within and without the church.
Literally every word you wrote is a meme or a buzzword, are you 14 or something?
If you're not even Catholic why even reply to my post.
I am, and I actually go to church, something I think you probably don't do since you sound like a terminally online zoomer
Huh, that's surprising because you didn't recognize words like synod and magisterium and so assumed you're not actually Catholic. Anyhow, I'll pray for you as well brother, I also go to church.
Sorry if I'm came off pissed off, because frankly I am like many Catholics because this is the most confusing and baffling pontificate in recent memory, we can pray for sure as well as also show concern.
Pray the rosary everyday.
Ok, but you should seriously stop listening to people saying those sorts of things, everything you wrote just isn't true and you're falling for a narrative that not only puts you and other catholics in danger of schism and apostasy but also is a major impediment to convincing others of the faith.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlZ81PxKUrgx2IZaQ7N58jaB4iO35sicP
>inb4 "no, I won't watch this he's a popesplainer REEEEEEE"
He actually uses Francis' own words to prove what he said and didn't say, whether you like him or not doesn't matter
>Michael Lofton
Oh no...lol just no.
Everything you said is incorrect btw, the more heretical the hierarchy becomes the more Catholics like myself are drawn in to defend the church.
And you can't convert people with the wrong faith and morals, fyi.
Again, I'll pray for you. Just don't be too scandalized when Pope Francis becomes a manifest heretic, don't leave the church.
>Oh no...lol just no.
Again, I don't care if you like him or not. In every video he addressed some "heresy" you people accused Francis of he dismantled it with the pope's OWN words, not his. I recommend him because he has the most content about this in one place.
>the more heretical the hierarchy becomes the more Catholics like myself are drawn in to defend the church.
This is on you and all others like you
You're delusional if you think saying the pope is a heretic will convince anyone of catholicism
>Just don't be too scandalized when Pope Francis becomes a manifest heretic, don't leave the church.
If he does Catholicism is proven false right there and then
>Just don't be too scandalized when Pope Francis becomes a manifest heretic, don't leave the church.
>If he does Catholicism is proven false right there and then
Then you don't know much about our faith. Once a pope is a manifest heretic, he's no longer pope. I guess now I understand why hyperpapalists exist such as yourself. You think this will somehow undermine the faith if you point out error. But you're incorrect, it's the job of the hierarchy to point out errors and the job of laymen to ask when there's concerns.
I won't debate you on this here, I pointed you somewhere and you willfully ignored it. Now you'll continue spreading lies that only undermine the faith of catholics and keep non-catholics from converting, but it's your choice and you'll have to answer for it someday.
>keep non-catholics from converting,
Then I'm doing what Pope Francis wants, this is a win for you I guess.
>it's your choice and you'll have to answer for it someday.
Ditto. I'm not following Pope Francis into schism if he makes me choose between him or the church Jesus founded.
I know who Michael Lofton is and I just can plainly say he's wrong and is putting on blinders. And he's also left the church multiple times, and though I'm glad he's back I'm not listening to him in matters of theology, faith, or morals.
>I know who Michael Lofton is and I just can plainly say he's wrong and is putting on blinders
By using Francis' own words? I'm not talking about his views or what he did or didn't do, I'm talking about the content he's presenting in these specific cases. Not a single video of his on these subjects is putting on blinders but showing where exactly the arguments against Francis fail using the pope's own statements in full context.
That's not true and you're again spreading lies.
https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/evangelization-oxygen-christian-life-pope-says
didn't he say christianity is not the only way, validating other religions? This is actual, literal heresy as seen in
>I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
You can't stay in a church led by a heretic. (un?)fortunately, the protestants were right.
>didn't he say christianity is not the only way, validating other religions?
No.
>didn't he say christianity is not the only way,
He was ambiguous as always with his cringe statements, he said something along the lines of:
"God wills for there to be different peoples (true), cultures (true), and RELGIONS (Nope, absolutely wrong).
>and RELGIONS (Nope, absolutely wrong).
He was talking about God permissively willing other religions to exist, he said it himself later on
If that's what he meant ( I doubt it) then he's not very good with his words because he formed the sentence with two other things that God EXPLICITLY does will into being.
That's just the hallmark of Pope Francis's pontificate, confusing and ambiguous.
>( I doubt it)
https://catholicism.io/2019/05/31/pope-francis-on-gods-will-and-the-diversity-of-religions/
>That's just the hallmark of Pope Francis's pontificate, confusing and ambiguous.
But not heretical.
>protestants were right.
Absolutely not. Martin Luther had to remove whole books from the bible to mold it into his heretical thinking.
He also says silly things like farting towards the devil makes him go away, where is that in the bible? So much for Sola Scriptura.
Protestantism is the white man's doctrine. He is the child of the one God and ruler of the earth beneath him. He doesn't need to be fed from a man's hand like a dog, nor confess to him as if that man holds any authority over his heart. He is the true worshiper of the divine, not of man's brick and mortar presentations of it.
>Protestantism is the white man's doctrine.
True, and Greek Orthodox is the Greek man's doctrine. And Coptic Orthodox is the Egyptian man's doctrine. And Ethiopian is the Ethiopian man's doctrine.
That's why they're all explicitly false.
Christ instructed to baptize and convert the nations to His church, The One true Holy Apostolic and Catholic (Universal) Church.
He did not say create a thousand different churches according to your race and nation.
the church was always an abomination
e-stats
Prove him wrong, groomer
>groomer
i'm not catholic
I didn't talk of catholics, seek meds
>1/3 of homos are alkies
not like this druk bros...
>you're now only just realizing that Cool Wine Aunts are all some gay's designated "gay hag"
Oh no..
I don't even want to know what a gay hag is. I'm too sad that 1/3 of homosexuals share my hobby that I thought was cool
>I don't even want to know what a gay hag is.
It's that one woman that hangs out with gay men and goes out partying and drinking with them in gay bars, usually single and most often than not hopelessly in love with one of her gay friends. Usually mid 30s to late 40s.
It's a sad state of affair for everyone involved really.
okay but they're easy and if her gay friends find you hot (which if you're not a slob they will because gays will frick anything) and you are nice to them they will piratically deliver her on a platter.
I'm depressed enough now that I'd give up on some sad lonely milf and just get shitfaced with the homos
Didn't hate 'em just didn't want them to become priests. Which is perfectly reasonable by the way. While child abuse happens literally everywhere in society (public schools, sports, their own families etc) the catholic church is the only institution that sees more boys getting abused (about 3/4 male victims) whereas it is literally the inverse everywhere else. It sucks, because it's not their fault but the fact remains that you really can't put these people into positions of trust and authority in regards to children.
Unfortunately for the Church, gays who wanted to hide they are gay often feel attracted to the church: it gives a justification to their sibilings as to why they arent married or never had a gf. Nowadays, unfortunately, like it or not, Church things often have an effeminate appearance to it. All the clothes, the chanting etc.
Who told me this? A friend who was a priest and admited he was gay.
His parents were dirty hippies who abandonned him so he grew up feeling bitter and vindictive towards everything. He followed conservative doctrine and hated the progressive idea of a kind, loving church that forgives all and adapts to the world around it. In reality he was actually a very kind and loving person who treated the few who knew him very well, but struggled to reconcile his wish to love and be loved with his fear of being betrayed and abandonned.
>loving church that forgives all
That's the traditional church, literally no traditionalist is against universal reconciliation. And no, the church shouldn't adapt to the world around it. The spirit of the age is not what it's called to worship or defend.
He's a Catholic, homosexuality is literally an abomination unto God, it's explicitly the case. Letting homosexuals into the church was a thing for a while and the result was the string of pedo priests.
Pedos don’t focus on boys or girls. They will take either.
Also if you’re gay in desire. But do not act upon it. How is this any more of a sin than the sin of every straight man? Jesus said any time you think of a woman lustfully you commit adultery. Which is something every man does.
>Jesus said any time you think of a woman lustfully you commit adultery
Source for this claim? The NT writings I'm aware of only talk about married men, mainly to make a point that remarrying after divorce is adultery. A single man absolutely can and will have lustful thoughts about women, and acting on that is actually encouraged to achieve the end goal of marriage to make two people "one flesh.
See:
Mark 10:11-12
Luke 16:18
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Matthew 5:28
>27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…
Ergo. Merely the thought of it is as bad as committing it. And it does not even mention the woman being married or the man being married so it would be cheating. Presumably married couples can look at each other lustfully and that’s fine though
Thanks anon. I thought I remembered something like that but couldn't find it so I figured I was remembering OT stuff and the NT just clarified the marriage/divorce part.
Well anyways, the sin is the same whether it happens straight or homosexual. The Church's problem isn't with the sin itself, it can be forgiven through penance (including homosexuality). The problem is that the clergy are especially vulnerable to infiltration by homosexuals in the closet especially because of the vow to celibacy -- on the outside, the clergyman appears chaste and virtuous since they don't display an attraction to women, but the last thing someone expects is a homosexual man living in sin as part of the clergy. The cat's out of the bag now, but who knows how long it's been happening.
Don't want to intrude too much but this passage is about actively thinking of comitting adultery in your thoughts. Like imagining it, thinking about it would be or even planning it. Not simply finding someone attractive. You can find someone attractive but catch yourself from fantasising.
Again, not merely attraction because otherwise you wouldn't be able to leave the house without comitting sin.
Catholicism is almost based around sin and confession. We all sin, but sin isn't your end.
Yes of course, sins can be forgiven as long as there is a little bit of contrition. And we all sin and are called to reconcile.
Where did I say that wasn't the case?
Dunno man, i think you implied it a bit with the "otherwise we would sin every time we left the house", because the point is that we DO sin every time we leave the house.
Uh yea I didn't mean it to sound like that, but good point. I guess I meant specifically the sin of adultery in your thoughts.
DO you even bible? It's like one of the most well known parts since it's in Mathew Ch. 5 particular at the front of the New Testament and some of the first things you'll read Jesus being quoted as saying.
>27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of
old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
>28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart.
inb4 someone replies with a Sunday school tier explanation about how Jesus "fulfilled the law" upon his crucifixion meaning that all he said is now void even though he said the law would be fulfilled at the end of time, not his death, and it would be pretty stupid for the author of Mathew to be like "Hey this is how the law should be OOPS LOL FORGET THAT I SUCK wienerS"
He just didn't like that priest in particular. He knew Aguirre was a gay too but didn't care.
He believed homosexuality was an affliction to test someone's fatih. Few gays have the mental and spiritual fortitude to resist acting out on their homosexual impulses. Cardinal Bernardo was a man of true faith, so he was in better standing than most despite being gay.
It’s considered the one sin that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance” and is so grotesque, it causes demons to turn away in disgust and revulsion. Which is interesting because homosexuals really are some of the most disgusting people to exist. Reading their private forum posts makes /b look like a family friendly message board.
Ah, Paul, that rascal.
I guess he witnessed it personally - unlike rape, child murder and pedophilia since those don't get ragged on nearly as much proportionally.
Look, here’s one now. Being a homosexual, you fully understand the intrinsic link between your orientation and pedophelia, as well as their over representation in psychopathy, pathological narcissism, serial murderers etc. Yes, he was correct. Your homosexual, b***hy response just further confirms it. Now seethe and reply again.
No but I'll try anything once! Hiyoooo!
The only dick I grab is my own.
that's the gayest shit i've ever heard
I wouldn't say anything. I'd just bend over and let him frick me in the ass, and that's what no one ever did.
Admit you're a pedo.
>LoveGod
>Love your neighbor as yourself.
>Forgive others who have wronged you.
>Love your enemies.
>Ask God for forgiveness of your sins.
>Jesus is the Messiah and was given the authority to forgive others.
>Repentance of sins is essential.
>Don’t be hypocritical.
>Don’t judge others.
>The Kingdom of God is near. It’s not the rich and powerful—but the weak and poor—who will inherit this kingdom.
These are the teachings of Christ as written in the Bible.
If you do not follow these teachings in your everyday life you are not a Christian.
If you cherrypick parts of the old testament to undermine these teachings you are not a Christian and are guilty of vanity.
teachings of Christ take presidence over all other types of knowledge.
"....One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12.28
"Christian" larpers didn't answer this message unsurprisingly
the only true post ITT
>love your enemies
I love my enemies even as I strike them down.
Jesus Christ is Lord
So how dies being a "christian" chantards actually work?
Do you spend the week spreading hate and vitriol online then pray for forgiveness when you go to church on Sunday (you do go to church dont you?)
Maybe you like to peruse the Bible during refractory periods between jerking off to troon porn, e-girl and shota?
I stopped going to church because it became pozzed.
If it is because of those TikTok LGBTQAI+ priests, they were all fake. None of them exists irl.
i show my pastor my Cinemaphile posts and he says im based
>spreading hate and vitriol
It is called Fighting Evil you grooming frick
>I am not "homosexual"! I have a relationship with God...and sex with young boys
just because something is forgiven doesn't make it okay
Not sure why people still follow judeo- christianity when we can follow the Paganism of our ancestors
"Not as gay as you, frickface."
>ha ha
Bi actually, your Holiness.
No I'm gay, moron.
It says not to eat pork, but locusts make a fine meal.
lmao no i wont eat ze bugs, into the trash the bible goes
In a nutshell, the pope considers any sexual contact before marriage a sin, and gays cant get married, and so, any gay sexual activity is a sin.
Do your parents know you're gay?
I like girldick so, no, I'm not homosexual.
Been a few years since I watched this but from what I recall. While he was clearly grossed out by gays. He didn’t actually care if a priest was homosexual. Only if they engaged in the act of homosexuality. E.g. sodomy or other sexual or romantic acts. Which Catholic priests are not supposed to be doing regardless of whether they’re straight or gay.
When he’s doing his questioning. The gay priest admits he is gay but has never indulged in homosexual actions. And Lenny finds this honesty refreshing, as he could easily banish him and basically upturn his entire life for admitting something he could easily just not admit since he’s never done anything gay physically.
Loved the Young Pope so much. Shame the New Pope sucked donkey balls
Also remembering that the two priests I recall who did actually have sexual relations in the show, both suffered terrible fates
>Lenny’s childhood friend who had the affair with the mafia guys wife in Latin America is murdered
>pedo priest who molested kids isn’t legally prosecuted for the church public image, so Lenny instead orders him to be the priest for some isolated shithole in Alaska where he’s clearly going to die soon
Are YOU homosexual?
No, I am a Cinemaphilener!
remember that swiss guard wife getting addicted to moron wiener to the point where she tried to murder the mother when she tried to cancel the arrangement
Watching christgays argue among themselves is so funny. The autistic legalistic bullshit is revealing, they are spiritual semites to the core.
watching an atheist b***h alone and get no replies is so funny. shows how you are spiritually a passive cuck to the core
You think that god will burn in magic lava, forever, most people in the world including those who follow the ~~*wrong version*~~ of the ~~*correct religion*~~
Your beliefs are laughable, no one ITT even agrees who’s the pope yet you say this is the holy truth? Asinine semitic bullshit
Benedict XVI was the last pope.
I don't recognize Francis as legitimate.
Simple as.
>Benedict XVI was the last pope.
>I don't recognize Francis as legitimate.
>Simple as.
Too bad that's not how the office works. At all.
A Benevecantist in the wild? That's a rare sight. I don't suscribe to it but his resignation was dubious to say the least.
Well he's dead so even if, Francis is now legitimate like he would he regardless.
People really don't understand the succession of the Papacy and how it works. Otherwise you wouldn't have morons thinking that somehow a bad Pope is an Antipope which is the same idea as the Left Behind Antichrist which was EXACTLY what John would have understood the idea as, clearly.
Antipopes are simply pretenders to a particularly. Pope Michael was an antipope. Now he's dead so there are no antipopes. Francis was appointed through the OFFICIAL ceremonial ballot, therefore he is the Official Pope. That's all that matters with offices like that.
>Francis was appointed through the OFFICIAL ceremonial ballot, therefore he is the Official Pope. That's all that matters with offices like that.
Technically not true, if Francis entered the papcy with the intent to undermine the church then that means he became Pope under false pretenses and that would make him and antipope.
Notice I said *IF* , I'm not claiming he did because I'm not a mind reader I'm just explaining the legality of the situation.
Who was that 10 year old that sold the Papacy? He's just as legitimate as the guy who bought it
>This is the vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XIII, speaking to you now
>Brothers and sisters, I want to be perfectly clear with you
>We are all guilty
>We are all guilty of war and death
>Always
>In the same way, we can all be guilty of peace
>Always
>I ask this of you on bended knee
>I am ready to die for you, if only you will become guilty of peace
>I always say to the children who write to me from all over the world: think about all the things you like
>That is God
>Children like all sorts of things, but none of them have ever written that way they like is war
>Now look at whoever is next to you
>Look at them with eyes of joy and remember what St. Augustine said:
>"If you want to see God, you have the means to do it
>God is love"
>I on the other hand won't speak to you about God until there is peace
>Because God is peace
>And peace is God
>Give me peace and I'll give you God
>You don't know how wonderful peace is
>You have no idea how disconcerting peace can be
>But I know
>Because I saw it when I was 45 years old, on from atop the ravaged roof of Reactor Building 4
I'm not gay. I really, really like women.
I absolutely am. Just the smell of a hot guy's pits can be enough to make me cum buckets.
She has a feminine penis, your holiness. In fact, you're gay if you wouldn't frick her.
>no, bro. Ask your mom heheheheheheh
I hate how unrestrained and flanderized the second season was. There is one iconic dancing scene in the first season that makes sense in the context, and then in the second season there's like a dozen dancing scenes with a gaudy dancing intro. Italian coomer directors need to have a tight leash.
I fricking hate how pozzed S2 was and retrospectively did its utmost to ruin S1. The funny thing is it started as so kino in the first 4 episodes with the antichrist John Malkovich stuff before quickly devolving into woke gay garbage.
At least S1 is 10/10
Is season one pro or anti Catholic? I can’t imagine Hollywood producing anything other than sacrilege.