Pope Francis appoints first woman to the Synod of Bishops

Fenaroli

Sparrow
I remain a catholic but i am about ready to write the vatican off
Are you referring to:

1) "Recognize and Resist" where you say you are still in communion with the Catholic Church, and perform pre-Vatican II rites, Vatican II is valid but the "spirit of the council" is being misused, recognize Francis is pope but just ignore some things he says on matters of faith and morality?

2) Sedevacantism: Accept Papal infallibility, reject Vatican II and all the Novus Ordo-affiliated "popes", accept that no heretic can be a valid pope while spouting false ecumenical doctrine, and accept that it's possible that the papal chair can be empty while at the same time God has not abandoned the Church.
 
Last edited:

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
That's an untenable theological position.

Is it ? The Pope used to spend time in Rome and no layperson really knew what he said or did unless he issued a dogma. The daily life of a villager in Flanders Belgium in the 12th century had so little to do with Rome or the Vatican.

Only since Pope JP2 becoming a celebrity, travelling etc etc did we start to look at the Pope in the daily press. I find the theological position of a devout Catholic is centred around the Church they are in,their holiness, how they treat their neighbour, their relationship with God, rather than what goes on in the Vatican.

Besides paying too much attention to it just scandalizes you. ;)
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
Is it ? The Pope used to spend time in Rome and nobody really new what he said or did unless he issued a dogma. The daily life of a villager in Flanders Belgium had so little to do with Rome.

Only since Pope JP2 becoming a celebrity, travelling etc etc did we start to look at the Pope in the daily press. I find the theological position of a devout person is centred around the Church they are in, their relationship with God, rather than what goes on in the Vatican.

Besides paying too much attention to it just scandalizes you.
All the Catechisms prior to Vatican II speak of the Pope's infallibility with regard to matters of faith and morality so what he says is truth.

We cannot change dogma because an antipope is openly mocking the faith, it is best to just reject him and his Vatican II predecessors utterly.

They are not preaching the Catholic faith, they are trying to create a one world religion to go along with the Novus Ordo.

The irony is the Muslims generally won't have it. But it doesn't matter, it's all about attempting to destroy the Catholic Church from within. It shouldn't dishearten anyone with faith because the Devil cannot ultimately win.
 
Last edited:

NickK

Woodpecker
The pope is infaliable, so he cannot be a heretic.
But he clearly is a heretic, therefore the pope cannot be infalible.
Therefore Vatican I was heretical.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
The pope is infaliable, so he cannot be a heretic.
But he clearly is a heretic, therefore the pope cannot be infalible.
Therefore Vatican I was heretical.
A heretic cannot be Pope. And Vatican I was valid because it clarified but did not change the faith. These are not my opinions but from any Catechism prior to Vatican II.
 

Sinabelus

Pigeon
The pope is infaliable, so he cannot be a heretic.
But he clearly is a heretic, therefore the pope cannot be infalible.
Therefore Vatican I was heretical.
There is another side to this argument, which is that since the pope is infallible, and the guy holding St. Peter's chair clearly is a heretic, then he isn't pope.
 
Are you referring to:

1) "Recognize and Resist" where you say you are still in communion with the Catholic Church, and perform pre-Vatican II rites, Vatican II is valid but the "spirit of the council" is being misused, recognize Francis is pope but just ignore some things he says on matters of faith and morality?

2) Sedevacantism: Accept Papal infallibility, reject Vatican II and all the Novus Ordo-affiliated "popes", accept that no heretic can be a valid pope while spouting false ecumenical doctrine, and accept that it's possible that the papal chair can be empty while at the same time God has not abandoned the Church.
I am not a theologian. I remain committed to the church - I see the vatican as corrupted, and there were many saints who prophesied that the vatican would be come the false church of the one world government (St Padre Pio for one). Now, what that means in terms of theology, you sound like you might be able to furnish a better answer than me.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
I am not a theologian. I remain committed to the church - I see the vatican as corrupted, and there were many saints who prophesied that the vatican would be come the false church of the one world government (St Padre Pio for one). Now, what that means in terms of theology, you sound like you might be able to furnish a better answer than me.
The Catholic Church itself cannot be corrupted or spoiled, because it carries the True Faith and is guided by the Holy Ghost itself, with Jesus Christ at the Head. You are right not to abandon the Faith itself and reject the heretics who materially sit in the buildings and call themselves Catholics.

The false claimants to the papal chair since 1958 are so blatantly heretical they make Arius look like a beginner. This is the result of the concerted push toward "Ecumenism". Did you know that Mr. Bergoglio in his 2016 tour of Georgia and Azerbaijan declared that it was a very "grave sin against ecumenism" to convert non-Catholics (in this case Orthodox):

"Never fight! Let the theologians study the abstract realities of theology. But what should I do with a friend, neighbour, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. “But should I make efforts to convert him or her?” There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytise the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ." - Antipope Francis, 2016

Got that? Ecumenism is our new Novus Ordo religion. This cuts at the very core of Christian Charity, which is to save the souls of your brothers who are in error.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
My dudes: just become Reformed. We went through the same thin just about 500 years ago.
No, dear Brother. To do that would be to abandon the One True Catholic Faith into schism.

We cannot interpret scripture on our own, Sola Scriptura without Tradition and guidance by the Holy Ghost through the Vicar of Christ, the Pope and his bishops who provide the necessary exegesis through the Catechisms. And we must submit to the authority of a valid Pope, who is infallible on matters of faith and morality.

Regarding Sola fide:
"If any one says, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." - Council of Trent
 
Last edited:

ben1

Sparrow
I do not interpret scripture on my own. My theology is in line with the true ecumenical councils (Nicaea, etc) and the reformed council of the Westminster Assembly and the Synod of Dordt. God has given the scriptures to all believers, and has praised those believers who received the teaching of apostles with a noble inquiry into the scriptures.

Acts 17:11 These [Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.

These refer to the Bereans subjecting even the literal apostolic teaching from Paul to the scriptures. All believers ought to follow the noble example of the Bereans, subjecting all Christian teaching to the word of God contained in the scriptures.

The Roman Catholics themselves are schismatic. They initiated schism with the East far before the Protestants were in position to protest the heretical doctrine of the pope. Unilaterally revising an ecumenical creed to add the filioque without so much as convening again with the Eastern churches (regardless of the truthfulness of the addition) is an act of schism.

The One True Catholic Faith is not held by the anti-Christ pope who exalts himself to a position of authority that does not belong to him. Just as Christ promised to remove the lampstand from the Churches in revelation if they would not repent, there is no specific church who has the unconditional promise that they not lose this lampstand should they refuse to repent. God's promise of the endurance of the church applies to the church of his body composed of the church considered as a whole.

This perfectly parallels the Old Testament church in Israel which contained within it a mixture of true prophets, true priests, and true kings, with false prophets, apostate priests, and apostate kings.

Paul pronounced anathama on anyone who preached a gospel contrary to his gospel, adding the superlative terms that even if we (apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to his, let them be anathama. This shows that even if the claims of apostolic authority are true of the pope or of an ecumenical council, that would not be enough to validate the revisionist soteriology of the Roman Catholic church.

It is noble to rest upon the promise of God to preserve his church, but it is not noble to, by false interpretation of that promise, believe that this promise applies rigidly and against all reason to a single bishop.

The great reformer John Calvin rested upon the authority of scripture for the reformation of the church, but demonstrated with hundreds of quotations from revered fathers of the early church that his doctrine was not new. Reformation doctrine was a recovery of the ancient faith, not an invention of a new one. It was a purification of an ancient church, not the invention of a new.

Paul declares that it is necessary that there be schisms among you in order that the true may be approved (1 Corinthians 11:19). God hates schism, but he assigns blame only to the side with heretical doctrine. Schism is lamentable but made necessary by heresy. It is actually sinful to remain yoked with false brothers without making motions to correct and reject theological and moral error.

It remains a highly confused and inconsistent position to on the one hand believe that salvation is only found in the Roman Catholic church as defined by the literal ecclesiastical structure only to deny the legitimacy of the clergy for the last 70 or so years. This shows the untenable position of granting a specific bishop the right to declare the authoritative Christian doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to:

1) "Recognize and Resist" where you say you are still in communion with the Catholic Church, and perform pre-Vatican II rites, Vatican II is valid but the "spirit of the council" is being misused, recognize Francis is pope but just ignore some things he says on matters of faith and morality?

2) Sedevacantism: Accept Papal infallibility, reject Vatican II and all the Novus Ordo-affiliated "popes", accept that no heretic can be a valid pope while spouting false ecumenical doctrine, and accept that it's possible that the papal chair can be empty while at the same time God has not abandoned the Church.
Thinking about this and reading some stuff I think I am not a sedevacantist, but the other thing. LOL
 
Top