>Orthodoxy and Protestantism are wrong because they don't have a central teaching authority that can give you clear explanations and certainty...

>Orthodoxy and Protestantism are wrong because they don't have a central teaching authority that can give you clear explanations and certainty on all doctrines blah blah
>Well what about the current state of the Catholic Church and all the nonsense going on since Vatican II?
>*cough* Well actually God didn't promise us that we would have a clear teaching authority or that you wouldn't just end up confused about everything okay? You just have to be Catholic in spite of it because blah blah
I don't get it. If Catholicism is contradiction and chaos then there's no benefit to the institution that it built up. What good does Pope Francis do to help you be certain about Catholic doctrine? How does he ensure doctrinal continuity with the past? It seems like if anything you end up in a worse place since you end up beholden to people you know are teaching falsehoods and have to live in cognitive dissonance. It's like some kind of ironic joke.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ah and let's not forget the liturgy. It's probably good to remember, now that Francis is taking even more efforts to suppress the Latin Mass, that this is the sort of liturgy that is officially approved:

    What is the benefit of any of this if the result is what's in the video?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Vatican II called for gregorian chant and all things traditional in the mass. Clown masses are not the consequence of any church document or teacihng, but rebelious individuals that will get their due when they die at least.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're the consequences of the actions of the popes and all the bishops in the entire world who allow, encourage, and practice it.

        [...]

        This is why Sedevacantism is a thing also if you don't wanna go fully Sede you go SSPX. They don't even listen to the Vatican and do their masses the same way as Pre Vatican 2.

        This is just cognitive dissonance. There is this authority that is instituted by God but we disagree so we're not going to do what they say.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Again, if you believe that God is placing bad leaders into power on purpose to punish His chosen people, there is no dissonance. If you get the Mass and liturgy the way you want it that's what counts.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is dissonance because Catholicism has doctrines about what the leadership will actually do, such as not teach error. Francis' teaching on the death penalty is included in the new edition of the Catechism which is used as a standard teaching document throughout the entire world. This means the church's ordinary magisterium is officially teaching error in contradiction to previous doctrine. Here's what it states:
            >Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”
            This disproves Catholicism in its entirety.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's not because many who hold to the Pre Vatican 2 doctrine often hold the current church as "the great Harlot" or "Whore of Babylon" and believe the book of Revelation predicts this happening

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's amazing that you can't even consider that the other church that split from yours, that is just as ancient has just as much claim to being the true church, could not ever possibly be right, when the church you're loyal to has driven you to calling it the whore of babylon so that you can defend how vile it currently is. Absolute cognitive dissonance. You've destroyed your own mind.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              wait don't Christians worship an innocent man who got executed? Surprised it took them this long to come around to opposing capital punishment tbh

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But without this capital punishment we wouldn't have salvation so it's a paradox.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Without the fall we wouldn’t have needed salvation in the first place dummy. Better to have never fallen but alas we inherited that stain so best we can do now is climb out of it with the help of God

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Better to have never fallen
                Then why did God allow it?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                God gave adam and eve (and the angels) free will to choose—otherwise he would have just created automatons who could never not love him.
                What I CAN’T explain is
                a) why God couldn’t have just forgiven us and restored humanity to the state we were in during the garden of eden without needing himself the Son to be sacrificed.
                b) how once we, God willing, make it to Heaven we will suddenly not have the ability to choose evil anymore.
                I hate to come across as edgy but it seems weird to me how God needs us to accept Jesus not just once but multiple times and go our whole lives trying to apologize for sin in confession and hope you die in his favor, but all of a sudden if you make it to purgatory or heaven you will suddenly not be able to choose sin even with free will? Makes no sense to me; if God can do this then why didn’t he just immediately forgive adam and eve and give them the ability to not sin again? Why send them out and allow them to have billions of progeny and still give them the threat of eternal damnation

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                God himself commanded the death penalty for those who committed certain crimes in the Old Testament. It is impossible for it to be wrong in itself.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/U8IQ7uL.png

      >Orthodoxy and Protestantism are wrong because they don't have a central teaching authority that can give you clear explanations and certainty on all doctrines blah blah
      >Well what about the current state of the Catholic Church and all the nonsense going on since Vatican II?
      >*cough* Well actually God didn't promise us that we would have a clear teaching authority or that you wouldn't just end up confused about everything okay? You just have to be Catholic in spite of it because blah blah
      I don't get it. If Catholicism is contradiction and chaos then there's no benefit to the institution that it built up. What good does Pope Francis do to help you be certain about Catholic doctrine? How does he ensure doctrinal continuity with the past? It seems like if anything you end up in a worse place since you end up beholden to people you know are teaching falsehoods and have to live in cognitive dissonance. It's like some kind of ironic joke.

      This is why Sedevacantism is a thing also if you don't wanna go fully Sede you go SSPX. They don't even listen to the Vatican and do their masses the same way as Pre Vatican 2.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        sedes and SSPX are protestants
        >they don't even listen to the Vatican
        how is this not protestantism? sedes are protestants in denial.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sedevacantists are arguably protestants, but I don't think SSPX or sedeprivationists are. Their position is closer to what the Orthodox believe i.e. recognize the Pope/Bishop of Rome but resist the error he teaches.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics will just say what every Christian says whenever you point out the evident contradictions within their belief system: "God has morally sufficient reasons to allow this apparently contradictory issue to happen, you just have to trust that on Judgement Day it will all make sense." You can literally apply this excuse to everything, it's literally unfalsifiable.

    So even if Pope Francis and all the cardinals and bishops publicly said "there is no God", hardcore Catholics will nonetheless insist that this somehow doesn't mean that the gates of hell have at last prevailed against the Church. They will just change their definition of what actually constitutes the "Catholic Church" and ramble on about how "God's ways are not like our ways".

    Tl, dr: it's cope, pure and simple.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *would nonetheless insist

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hardcore Catholics will nonetheless insist that this somehow doesn't mean that the gates of hell have at last prevailed against the Church
      This appeal to the "gates" has always struck me as funny. What is a gate? It's something that blocks entry, a defensive structure. It means that the Church will overcome Hell (Hades), that is, that the Church will overcome death. They completely destroy what the passage is about.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This video explains a lot. God is actually placing bad leadership in there on purpose to punish people for not being devout enough and this is in line with the Bible.

      The people have despised the truth so God is giving them bad leaders and not giving them the grace to see what's going on.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm sorry, but there's a much simpler explanation for what's happening: your God doesn't exist. Under atheistic naturalism, religious institutions decaying and modifying their teachings is not surprising at all. It's precisely what you would expect to find in a world where religion is a man-made phenomenon.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Atheistic naturalism doesn't explain things like consciousness or supernatural phenomena.

          There's tons of evidence for God
          It's obvious God is placing bad leadership on purpose.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's obvious is that Catholicism is wrong. He isn't protecting it because it isn't the "true church."

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              God has been intervening to show some people the truth. However, He will keep blinders on certain people to punish them for they had despised the truth already and will not give them the grace to see truth at all. Pic related.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i'm sorry but if my arguments don't make sense to you is because you're a reprobate and God has already predestined you to Hell
                Wow, so much for the rational side of religion lmao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you think about it, we're in the great falling away and only some people will be able to make it through. I don't know when the end times era will come but we're approaching it certainly and the trends are certainly saying so.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The amount of times throughout history in which Christians claimed that the endtimes were approaching should probably make you think twice, schizo

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In those times tons of people weren't leaving the faith as they are now. Many people becoming atheist, agnostic, and into immoral beliefs proves we are closer to the end.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And if you're wrong? How long do wait? How long before you realize you got duped and Catholicism isn't true?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                2062-2065 for sure because it predicted the apostacy would be 75 to 100 years until the world ends.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The apostasy started clearly with Vatican 2 which ended 57 years ago. You might want to move your dates a bit closer. I know you've put them far out, though, so that you won't ever have to answer for them. This is part of how you deal with your cognitive dissonance. You have to keep things unfalsifiable, because if you ever admitted any real standard you would be forced to admit you are wrong.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not been 75 to 100 years. 57 is not 75 let alone 100.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It will never be enough. If the time comes and you're still alive you'll find some other thing to cling to. That's how it works. You can never be honest about it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >intelligent design
            Really? I expected something more sophisticated. Still, even if one were to accept those arguments as valid and sound, they don't prove the God of Roman Catholicism. With religion, the more specific you get, the weaker the "proofs" become.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Here's some specific miracles

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            cringe

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you can't explain something right now that means I get to make shit up to fill in the blanks

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >publicly said "there is no God",
      If a pope puts that forth as a teaching, then he isnt pope anymore.

      >hardcore Catholics will nonetheless insist that this somehow doesn't mean that the gates of hell have at last prevailed against the Church
      This appeal to the "gates" has always struck me as funny. What is a gate? It's something that blocks entry, a defensive structure. It means that the Church will overcome Hell (Hades), that is, that the Church will overcome death. They completely destroy what the passage is about.

      that's not even a catholic interpretation, we see it everywhere. Also, armies go forth from gates so you can interpret it both ways.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >then he isn't pope anymore
        Literally no True Scotman fallacy. You see what I mean when I said that your mental gymnastics are unfalsifiable?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          saying that if the pope puts forth false teaching then he loses his position isn't a fallacy, its just reality.
          If a policeman does a huge crime, then everyone knows he isnt a policeman anymore.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If a policeman does a huge crime, then everyone knows he isnt a policeman anymore.
            Literally nobody thinks like this.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              if someone does a blunder in their job, they are fired. everyone thinks like that.
              The popes havent put forth false dogma though. so this situation we are discussing never happened in the papacy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >then he isn't pope anymore
            Literally no True Scotman fallacy. You see what I mean when I said that your mental gymnastics are unfalsifiable?

            Also in the whole of Church history, is almost impossible to find a case that could be seen as a false teaching being put forth by a pope.
            There only case is in the early church, and its debatable anyway.
            So clearly miraculous, given the low quality of some men to managed to get to pope.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >So clearly miraculous, given the low quality of some men to managed to get to pope.
              Then even more miraculous are the bishops of Eastern Orthodoxy who have preserved the faith even more successfully and have no modern catastrophes such as Vatican II and Francis.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodoxy is, in all likelihood, closely tied to the Russian Mafia

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If a policeman does a huge crime, then everyone knows he isnt a policeman anymore.
            hahahahaahaaa.
            meanwhile in the real world, some cop was initially granted qualified immunity for the conduct in pic related before it was reversed on appeal

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you see someone commit murder do you need a judge and jury to say they murdered someone? Nope. In the same way, you can declare a heretic without any council convicting anyone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So like, you are telling me that we can privately and intuitively interpret which doctrines a Christian should belive in? Wow, bro, I've never heard about this. You should write your ideas down and nail them to the door of your local church, now that will show the modernists!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Heresy isnt simply saying something off hand that violates Catholic doctrine. Also only bishops have the liberty to make the judgements he talks about. Lay people and priests have always had an obligation of obedience, which you would know, if you actually cared about Catholic tradition beyond that Latin mass.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's impossible to be fully trad today but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try and do what we believe is right. This Sedevacantist argument I've seen below is very sound:

              It’s impossible today to be a genuine counter-revolutionary, and thus a genuine “traditional” (i.e., actual) Catholic. We live in a madhouse, a slaughterhouse, and one cannot live in a slaughterhouse without absorbing the stench.

              Those of us posturing as counter-revolutionaries, and thus as actual Catholics, are indeed merely posturing as such. We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, just pretenders.

              By our own efforts we are indeed doomed; only grace can save us.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The current state of the Catholic church is just very weird. Especially in America. Francis is certainly Catholic in that he would never give in to the world and say gay marriages should be blessed or that being trans is okay or anything. But at the same time it seems like he wants people going to Mass and clapping their hands and singing new-age songs and celebrating culture all the while dogpiling on Catholics who want to use communion rails to receive the Lord and listen to gregorian chants and find a more mystical/ancient aspect to the faith. Very fucking weird
                It’s ironic that in the US the USCCB are about to embark on a multi-year conference on why the Eucharist has lost reverence with the laity, but at the very same time those bishops are shutting down traditional masses and refusing to give out communion to people who walk up and kneel all the while openly handing it out like hot cakes to people who have obviously never been to confession since they were in elementary school.
                I will never leave the catholic church no matter how bad it gets, but it’s getting worse because of out-of-touch boomer leadership and schismatic reactionaries

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think it depends on the city. It seems that on the coasts, Latin is shutting down more whereas in middle America, people are disobeying more and having reverence. Have you thought of becoming SSPX? SSPX has what you want.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The sound argument sounds super protestant to me.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, you should see the pretzel logic the tradcath discord warriors do to justify the Vatican declaring that israelites don't need to believe salvation is achieved through Jesus to get into Heaven

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is LULZ the go-to board for godwarriors now?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's most amazing perhaps about the Catechism revision is one of the reasons given for the change, which is
    >Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.
    So Christians of the past did not have a sufficient awareness of the dignity of the human person. Otherwise they would have understood that the death penalty was always wrong. Only today are we able to understand, guided by the beneficent wisdom of Pope Francis.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We will keep doing what we do. Seethe
    Pic related

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, we get it, you're amerimutt protestants.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The amount of mental contortion they'll go through to avoid Orthodoxy is truly astounding.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My moral preferences and liturgical preferences are pre Vatican 2 Catholic so why go Orthodoxy when I can have my preferences already? Americans will have our preferences whether you like it or not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're more Protestant that Protestants. They act least believe that what they believe is true rather than just a personal preference. You're not even a Christian anymore, just some of social LARPer.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What I believe IS true. Why should I go to you when I can already have what I want here? Again, what do you have to offer me that I can't get in many churches around the USA who resist the Pope all the time?

              Preferences ARE important considering you are obligated to keep the Sabbath.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think they'd be too happy with Orthodoxy either, given their allergy to being told what is righteous or how rituals should be done.

          The supreme irony of course is that all the traditions they cling to were mandated by the Church, notably at the Council of Trent.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're getting what they want and believe. Orthos are pissed that Americans solve our own problems

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you end up beholden to people you know are teaching falsehoods and have to live in cognitive dissonance
    Yeah, religion really is a strange thing

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't though. SSPX is full of closet Sedes now and they don't listen to Vatican rules

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You must obey the Pope, your very salvation is dependent upon it!
        >But not that one!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's the thing about Catholicism. Can't know whether the Pope is a real Pope until centuries later and you're dead and buried since he could be ruled an antipope in the future.

          That's the neat thing about Sedevacantism. You can declare that the Papal chair is empty and all of a sudden there is no authority.

          SSPX is full of closet Sedes but they are the "recognize and resist" strategy. They just do whatever they want in their own churches. I go further than that and just declare there is no Pope.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The identity of the Pope is not determined by the laity. You don't have any authority to determine the identity of any bishop at all. You have absolutely zero say in the matter.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The SSPV priests already did this

              Within a few years, about half of the original nine SSPV priests separated from Kelly. Most of them formed an openly sedevacantist group, "Catholic Restoration", under the leadership of Dolan and Sanborn. Both were later consecrated as bishops in the episcopal lineage of the sedevacantist Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục. The other priests founded independent ministries.

              Cekada states[7] that this resulted from the SSPV's intrinsic distrust of a centralized authority as existed in the SSPX, which makes the latter vulnerable to being "subverted with one stroke of a pen" to the Vatican. Rather than independent congregations being a weakness and something to be lamented, Cekada considers all such groups and priests taken together preferable to the SSPX, which has continued to hold negotiations with Rome and uses the 1962 Missal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The SSPV priests already did this
                Priests are not the successors of the Apostles, bishops are. A group of priests doing something does not matter. They do not have that authority.
                >Both were later consecrated as bishops in the episcopal lineage of the sedevacantist Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục.
                Who was excommunicated for it. You've established nothing but the existence of a rogue bishop.

                The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodoxy is, in all likelihood, closely tied to the Russian Mafia

                And? Are you a Donatist?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You do not have the authority to interpret canon law to determine what that means or whether it applies. Rulings on canon law can only be made by bishops.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't need a judge and jury to declare an abortionist a murderer. Similarly, you don't need a council to declare a heretic. Anthony Cekada was right.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can know those things because of the teaching of the bishops. The bishops do not teach that Francis is an antipope. Therefore you do not have the authority to claim it. Your duty is to obey your bishop.

                >Who was excommunicated for it
                Once upon a time the Pope was excommunicated by Constantinople, you can't really excommunicate someone that's already gone rogue, the apostolic cat is out of the bag.

                Do note here that there was a ruling actually made on the matter by a legitimate authority. No such thing exists today. There is only your private judgment, which is meaningless. You have no authority and no say in this matter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >. There is only your private judgment, which is meaningless. You have no authority and no say in this matter.
                I'm not a Sede, I'm a baptist because I'm not a bootlicking cuck that needs any authority but God to tell me how to read the Bible.
                I'm just saying why would Sedes care if their Sede bishops are excommunicated when they've already rejected Rome? That's like quitting your job and your boss trying to say "you can't quit, you're fired".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't understand the point I'm trying to make. He clearly does. My argument is not with you.

                What if your Bishop ignores the Vatican rules?

                Then it is the duty of higher authorities such as the Pope to discipline them. Again that is not something you have any say in.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What if your Bishop isn't in communion with Rome? Then the rules don't apply.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "... we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." -- Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

                What if the Pope is a heretic?

                That must be adjudicated by the bishops and not by you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but there is no current Roman Pontiff

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You cannot determine that, only the bishops can. We already went through this. You as a layman have no authority in this matter at all.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That must be adjudicated by the bishops and not by you.
                Do I need the bishops to tell me the sky is blue?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you don't need the bishops to teach you Christian doctrine then you should go ahead and become a Protestant, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's basically what Sedes are, and that's a good thing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then go ahead and stop calling yourself Catholic, because the Catholic recognizes the authority of the bishops.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can be protestant and call yourself Catholic, Anglicans have been doing it for centuries. You just need your own bishops.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Dirk

                Almost all protestants call themselves Catholic because we say the creed
                Catholicity definitely doesn't require an episcopal structure since that was a development from the early church

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you trying to make him stay a papist? Bizarre.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What if the Pope is a heretic?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What if your Bishop ignores the Vatican rules?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again I repeat, you have absolutely zero (0) authority to decide this matter. Your opinion is null and does not matter at all. This is what authority means. You don't have it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Who was excommunicated for it
                Once upon a time the Pope was excommunicated by Constantinople, you can't really excommunicate someone that's already gone rogue, the apostolic cat is out of the bag.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dont forget that Catholic priests didnt give the full Communion (bread n wine) to anyone but themselves .
    plebs and even nobility gets the bread - priests get both the bread and all the wine .
    very Christian indeed .

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the bread is not the wine and the wine is not the bread but by just receiving the bread the laity still receive both the body and blood
      >this is stupid
      I know but it’s how it works

Your email address will not be published.