If you're not a traditionalist Catholic you are going to hell

It's that simple folks!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/k6C9BuXe2RM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>If you're not a traditionalist Catholic you are going to hell
So you deny the fact that the Catholic Church has said Christians outside of Catholicism can be Saved?

>being spooked

Catholics are just money sucking euro jews larping that they have some kind of divine authority.
Your indulgence isn't gonna save you from hell.

Yes. That statements contradicts previous teaching and was not made ex cathedra since it was declared during Vatican II, which the Pope at the time explicitly said did not contain statements of infallible doctrine. Next question.

She has a nice rump desu. Congrats.

Why is the pope such a cuck?

>Yes. That statements contradicts previous teaching and was not made ex cathedra since it was declared during Vatican II, which the Pope at the time explicitly said did not contain statements of infallible doctrine. Next question.
So you're saying the Catholic Church was wrong and is currently issuing edits in error?

Videogames are sinful wastes of time for pathetic losers.

OP's pic is a family of cucks.

Because humans have free will. Christ guaranteed only that the Holy Spirit would prevent the teaching of errant dogma and doctrine in specific circumstances. Catholics still must morally discern and advocate for their faith otherwise.

There have been terrible popes throughout history. Francis may be the worst though.

>There have been terrible popes throughout history. Francis may be the worst though.
So the church made a mistake in electing him pope?

There is no strain of Catholic theology that would imply this is not possible. Catholic teaching is only infallible when it is taught ex cathedra through the universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. These have only been used a handful of times since the 1950s. For instance, when John Paull II said women can't be priests. Just because you are not clear on the nature of Catholic obedience and the limits of papal infallibilty doesn't mean you can play eye rolling skeptic.

>“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

Ergo, VII was not infallible but the pope wanted everyone to go along with it anyway with "docility". Fortunately, he doesn't have the authority to say that. The greatest thinkers in Church history, like St. Augustine, did the same.

There is no guarantee that a pope will not be terrible. You are severely misunderstanding Church teaching and the idea of infallibility. Terrible popes have always existed.

I wonder what the preist of the church you go to would think of your actions here.

Would he approve of this site? Would he approve of your attempts to lump hatred and shame upon other Christians?

Would he approve of you dismissal of certain catholic doctrine?

You are doing the work of the devil...and you're disgusting.

Kys faggot. Burn in hell.
Vatican II was a pastoral council meaning you don't have to agree with it.

HAHAHAHAHA ok guy
>the man without an argument
Please explain how your little post here connects to any of the substantive points I've put forth thus far. Couldn't do it, could you? That's because you are thinking with emotions like a literal, LITERAL woman. Yikes. I'm embarrassed for you, but it's ok if you just duck out of the thread, sweetie.

A friendly reminder that cucktholicism isn't American and it will never be American. Those images of comfy nuclear white families going to churches in the US are protestant churches, not pagan temples.

Wrong. I drew that picture and it is literally my family. Cuck.

>American culture
>good by any standards
Top kek

I was confirmed, but don’t currently practice. One of the biggest reasons is his embarrassing self.

SSPX

Wild.

ABSOLUTELY KEKED !

SAVED !

...

I'm going to my first SSPX Mass tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

FFSP*

Kek

Too many pedophile priests and downright mean nuns.
Church of Christ is a most excellent Reformation church.
No foreign pope.

>Vatican II was a pastoral council meaning you don't have to agree with it.

So, you kinda do, but there isn't inherently anything wrong with V2 anyways. The only negative thing we can say about the Church is that the Vatican was extremely optimistic about the results of V2. They didn't realize that "Vatican II vs. The Spirit of Vatican II" would ever be a thing, and they sure as hell didn't predict that myriad of liturgical abuses which would result. Not their fault, but the Church needs to never be optimistic.

Doesn't matter. Novus Ordo (at least in my Diocese) is becoming more and more reverant every day, and the Latin Mass sees it's pews packed with young people every week.

I respectfully disagree; however, I believe that if you discerned that in good faith there is nothing detrimental to your salvation by your decision. FSSP does some great stuff. I personally find the issues that separate SSPX from FSSP to be too important to me.

The only thing that really grates on me is conciliar Catholics, including some FSSP, who INSIST that SSPX is schismatic, etc. when it is literally the past two popes who have proven otherwise. Benedict lifted the excommunications and Frank gave a permanent dispensation to SSPX to perform the only two sacraments that would otherwise have required jurisdiction.

Most of the shit we read from Vatican II is people overreacting. Of course there was some prot influence on it (literally why) but the teachings of the church didn't change because no one can do it.

I think the NO, while valid, is detrimental to souls. It is imbued with Protestant theology (Prod theologians were involved in VII, specifically Calvinists) to remove "offense". The Mass is not a meal. That is a Prod invention. The Mass is the sacrifice at Calvary, full stop. There are no other components. I resent that the NO is focused on the Last Supper, when this was never the intention. It is muddled, dangerous theology. Ask Catholics what they think the Eucharist is. Most will say it's the Last Supper, because of how deranged catechesis has become in the wake of VII.

>tfw you will never throw every Catholic back into the ocean where they belong

Nah, the choice is between the Perennial Tradition and the Outsider (Jahveh/Allah). Catholicism from what I can tell is the former masquerading itself as the latter.
All shall be revealed right before the Endtimes.

>but there isn't inherently anything wrong with V2 anyways

Dude....

They literally turned themselves into faggy protestants

I was referring to the images you catholicucks use in your other threads of comfy Americana culture with protestant churches. Catholicism isn't American.

I belong in hell so it works out

>derp when catholicucks act like cucks, let's name call them protestants xD
Catholics are more liberal in the Americas than Europe.

youtu.be/k6C9BuXe2RM

I love this man, bishop Williamson is quite the man, he's very humble and intelligent

Come to Mexico and you might dissagree, US is the birthplace of the new era tendency

>Benedict lifted the excommunications

I'm just curious as to why you would cite an action by Benedict — probably the man who helped start the liturgical counter-revolution towards traditionalism — and yet still feel as if you need to go to an SSPX parish instead of a Latin Mass which is still in communion with Rome. Popes like Benedict in the future (we can only hope for Cardinal Sarah — the anti-migration archconservative who just happens to be African) will be the norm, and the "positives" (I use this term lightly) of the theological minimalism allegedly introduced by V2 will allow rites of all nations, unique to their culture, to be developed?

>The only thing that really grates on me is conciliar Catholics, including some FSSP, who INSIST that SSPX is schismatic, etc.

It's schismatic in the sense that we need you fucking people in the pews of the "Novus Ordo" now more than ever! You are the firebrands of the Church. It's the pressure of people like you on the bishops which will see the reintroduction of incense, the elimination of ad populum and the reintroduction of ad orientem, and the return of even the Novus Ordo to reverence.

not traditionalist, thats why reddit loves this pope so argument nulled

your already there

Do they have SSPX in Mexico, Mexi-friend?

VII wasn't as negative as you think. My assumption is that you are still overly concerned and connected with dogmatic and traditional obedience.
In fact, VII has helped influence some incredibly valuable philosophical and theoretical theses.
Without PJP's insistence on a greater concentration on anthropology and other humanities, thinkers like Rene Girard wouldn't have shed light on their incredible revelations.
Girard, in my opinion, may possibly end up being considered one of the most important Catholic thinkers of the last few centuries.

I think you make the mistake of confusing Christianity with Christendom and must realise that the lived experienced of Christian Love, Conversion and Penitence will always be more important than stale dogma and tradition.
Haven't Voegelin, Scheler, Dostoevsky taught you anything?

>I wonder who could be behind this post

I love and respect Benedict, but I still disagree with the neoconservative Catholic position spearheaded by him and JPII. They posit the "hermeneutic of continuity" that basically requires internalizing cognitive dissonance.

SSPX is in communion with Rome. The term Benedict used is that SSPX is "not fully reconciled," meaning SSPX disagrees on certain issues, but not on any doctrine that would constitute heresy or schism.

I tried to do what I could in my parish. There was too much cuckery and politics. There is something to be said for making a statement by contributing to the success of SSPX instead. The Vatican sees all traditionalists as a monolithic unit anyway. If you feel you can do more from inside parish structures, I applaud you. It's just... not for me anymore. With that said, if SSPX was formally declared schismatic I would leave it, but the trend is for it to receive increasing legitimacy from the Vatican.

Genuine question, as I am baptized and confirmed catholic but no longer consider myself catholic. How can anyone overlook the massive pedo problem in the catholic church around the world? Also, Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not a church, not a man, not a doctrine. Jesus Christ. Everything that has come after Christ is extra. Saying you need the catholic church for salvation is heresy.

>Most of the shit we read from Vatican II is people overreacting. Of course there was some prot influence on it (literally why) but the teachings of the church didn't change because no one can do it.

Yep. I'll mention it again: Vatican II vs. Spirit of Vatican II. Pope Benedict drew some pretty clear lines in the sand which will prevent the continuation of decades of liturgical abuses following the "Spirit of Vatican II". The Church wasn't aware that Prots and, even worse, Marxists had entered the ranks of the Priesthood, but those days will soon be over. Every single young priest I meet — including the Hispanic ones, at least in the North East — have the fire of Old in them. We just need to wait for the generation of liberal priests to die out. Give it thirty years, and, let me tell you, the reverence will be a sight to behold.

>Ask Catholics what they think the Eucharist is. Most will say it's the Last Supper, because of how deranged catechesis has become in the wake of VII.

Woah. That's insane. Which diocese is this? That's a toxic community, man. Even the cucked out catholics I've spoken to will readily accept that Mass is the Sacrifice. That's dangerous shit, brother. Guess what? It's YOUR responsibility to be active in correcting this. It sucks, I know, but the liturgical counter-revolution will be complete much faster if the parish is active in correcting Modernist influences.

Vatican II vs. Spirit of Vatican II. Trust me, man. That pic sends fire running through my veins. Last night, at the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the altar boy was female. Every single altar "boy" was female, from the laity, dressed like shit . . . issuing the Eucharist.

Yet, I go to NO masses where these abuses will never happen. Ever.

Read the documents of Vatican II. Over-optimistic? Yes. Theologically damaging in the long-run? No. Benedict, as I said, in a few of his circulars, acted to correct a ton of the abuses of past decades, cont

>the pope says
you're already straying from God

Yes, I know the bishops personally and my family has contributed a lot to the fraternidad and I still contribute

Thanks for the advertisement, goyim.

The Pedo shit is largely Jesuits. The real problem of the Catholic Church is that a Pope exists. When did Jesus or God ever say there's supposed to be a man in charge of the Church who speaks for them to all of mankind?

I smell a large nose.

:o

I don't entirely disagree with everything you're saying, and I don't think the entirety of Vatican II is invalid; all of it is, except the parts that are explicitly in error. But I also completely disagree with you that Christian love is anything but entirely congruent with dogma and tradition. Those things are one and the same, and any attempt to disentangle them is pure marxism/jewishness. Love means nothing if it is not connected to Christ's law and salvation.

Agreed 100000%

The moral part of me says that the Christian part of Sup Forums constantly devouring itself SJW-style is something to be angry about, given that it's the primary tool the Jew has used to cripple the White race for the last 1900 years. But the other part of me just thinks that it's fucking hilarious.

>They posit the "hermeneutic of continuity" that basically requires internalizing cognitive dissonance.

I disagree that the HOC requires internalizing, as you say, cognitive dissonance, and I would even much more so caution in attributing any sort of ideology to a pope, or the Church (although, these days, it's quite easy with Francis and the older generation of liberal Priests, I'll give you that.) Anyways, the HOC begins to make sense when you can classify three kinds of Bishops in the dioceses: 1. Trad Bishops/priests, 2. "Moderate" bishops/priests who fall between 1 and 3, and 3, the liberal, hippy-dippy "anything goes, infinite love" priests.

Now, go back to 1963. Children are destroying their parents' heritages. There's a "sexual" revolution in the West, evidence of a slow-burning Marxism, while the Orthodoxy in the East is seeing a large number of their parishioners being literally martyred under a "hard" Marxism, Communism. Given the documentation of Vatican II (which was supposed to be finished in Vatican I, but Italian unification disrupted the council), what was a moderate Bishop (the majority of Bishops, I posit, in the USCCB, even at the time) to do? Remember - salvation of the soul comes before anything. They were scared, quite fucking scared, of the amount of people leaving Church and not being saved. It seemed, at the time, the only solution was to let the Spirit of V2 go, because, while theologically minimalist, Novus Ordo will still save you. It's lazy. It's liturgically abusive under the wrong priest. But your sorry ass will be saved. The Trad bishops, knowing their mission better than anybody else, went along with this . . . and the liberal Bishops had their decade made.

This is why the hermeneutic is so important to remember: every force in the world was coming down on the Church. Even the fucking Church. And certain communities made the choice that salvation was more important than anything, knowing full well (cont)

there's no point in being Christian if you can't convince yourself of god's reality deep down. Just LARPing and pretending to believe won't do shit for you. It's better for most people to be an athiest in their youth until they can understand what people mean when they say God. It's an extremely complicated idea and takes years to conceptualize.

That's not how it works.

Honestly, most of that was in the 80s when almost all of the new priests were gay weed smoking Jesuits. It has calmed down a lot now. THe homos dont need to hide and they feel like the church isnt "tolerant" of them, so they dont become priests anymore. (also, its almost as bad in public schools)

The existance of a bishop of Rome is a problem?
Check yourself, or at least argue it coherently. He is the highest bishop.

I could not agree more. I find, however, that obedience to dogma and tradition required the presupposition of experiencing Christs Love and mercy.

To put dogma and tradition at the forefront without having experienced what one is honouring is, i believe, what has created this epidemic of cradle Catholics who no longer want anything to do with the Church.
VII was revolutionary in its focus on the experiential over the dogmatic.

I was a cradle Catholic who had lost my way and though i paid lip service to the Church by showing up on Sunday's, i never truly understood the real meaning of Mass even though i understood its significance. It wasn't until I had a true experience of Christs love vis a vis Repentance that i understood the beauty of Mass. I now go 3-4 times a week and oversee group Rosary recitations.

This over emphasis on Orthodoxy is, in my opinion, the problem with other Religions such as Eastern cults, Islam and non-Catholic denominations. In remembering the steps to the dance, one forgets why one dances in the first place.

Just a note - Your branding things "marxist" or "jewishness" reeks of scapegoating.
Please read Girard (Things hidden since the foundation of the world). Scapegoating is the "skandalon" Christs revelation tried to overcome.

that liberalism in the Church was going to die as the Pax Europa/Pax Americana came to a close sooner or later (we're seeing it), and after that generation of liberal priests — really a fucking wildcard that nobody would've predicted — gave up the ghost.

This is what I think of when I at least justify the concept of the HOC: a rocky point in 20th Century Church history which allowed it to exist in full today via a symbolic, strategic retreat (feigned retreat? I can't tell) over a period of a few decades, a expanse of time which, in God's eyes and the eyes of the Church, is really fucking nothing. We're getting back on track to business as usual as the world goes to shit, and I have nothing but faith that the Church, utterly besides herself in the era of wanton material paradise, will be, within 100 years, the vanguard of traditionalism. It's a continuity because the time period of V2 and the early 21st century is nothing more than a slight hiccup that we make a big deal out of because it encompasses our lives, and if the Church goes back to how it was for the majority of 1900 years, did it ever truly change?

You're not a true catholic if you don't fuck children

>Please read Girard

MY NIGGA. Girard and Chesterton go hand in hand

then why are protestant nations so much more succesful than cathcuck nations these last few centuries?

>Italians
>Irish
>West Slavs
>Spanish/Portuguese

>white
Wow.....so this... is the power.....of the Catholic race....

>via a symbolic, strategic retreat (feigned retreat? I can't tell) over a period of a few decades

I'd also like to add that, other than the chronic optimism during V2 which caused the abuses of the Spirit of V2, this strategic "retreat" is only possible when the Church begins to act like an organization instead of the Church. That's where mother Church went wrong in the 20th century: acting like a civic organization instead of the Rock of Christ.

JPII was entirely correct in labeling the 20th century "our difficult century", and the Church doesn't get to escape the blame. They partook in the difficulty too, but, as Christians, we need to pray, pray, pray, that the Church will get back on track.

And it will. Have a little faith. He's listening. Always has been. Always will.

AND Chesteron?!
My bro, i read Girard and followed it DIRECTLY with Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man.

You're my Dude and absolutely right about them going hand in hand. In a way Chesterton was, in a literary way(Elfland), prefiguring Girards highly scientific theses.

>S O L A S C R I P T U R A
>O
>L
>A

>S
>C
>R
>I
>P
>T
>U
>R
>A

Your mind will be blown if you take some of the stuff Girard says, the intellect of The Everlasting Man, and . . . wait for it . . . Zeitgeist.

All religions and spiritual systems which seem to "predate" Christ simply foreshadow and predict his coming. God is Timeless, and Jung, I think, is onto something big with his archetypical theories. But if God is timeless, the Truth always was, and Christ on Earth represents a massive shift in the paradigm of man, there's nothing to say that Jungian archetypes — exhibited in the intersection between spirituality and literature, which is myth — don't work backwards in time as well.

Something to think about.

t. paki

Amen to that. Well said.

Catholics violate the Bible repeatedly, silly.

>idols
>claiming they can make up new truth
>pope (no, Peter was not the first pope)
>praying to saints (no, praying to them "for intercession" does not make it okay, they don't have more weight with God than any other human)
etc etc

>Spend eternity with a bunch of boring nonames who missed out of a lot of fun and expierences in their lifes

In what universe is that a good deal?

Good luck trying to find a traditionalist Catholic wife now.

>Catholic thread
>gay prot shitting the thread once again
Go read the Bible instead of sucking pastor Jim cock while he says James 2 is wrong.

Are you a Protestant?

Maccabees is calling. He wants his Sola Scriptura back.

>insist what your pope says is more important than what the Bible, the literal word of God, says
>insult actual Christians who call you out on your BS

kek, never change

Yet you browse Sup Forums Sup Forums good job OP

why don't christians just go back to the very first church and teachings unifying theirselves again?

Maccabees, sola scriptura, etc

Hail Satan!

>implying average burger has knowledge of ancient languages and cultures to be fully able to understand the bible
>B-but KJV is infallible
>removes 7 books
>claims he's a Christian although he denies apostolic sucession
>derives his authority from pastor Jim (or worse from himself) instead of Peter which is the rock where Jesus built the Church
Just protestant things.

...

That's bullshit. Read the bible you twat. It says that as long as you have faith and believe that you are saved, you are saved. I'm a protestant myself and I've had some amazing things happen to me as a kid through prayer and faith. If you have enough faith, God will make it happen. He admires people who have the grit to believe to the very end. When I used to be in to reading my bible and praying as a young kid, he literally spoke to me once. It was the most insane experience of my entire life. This is not a larp. I was hiking with my mom. I had previously read about how Samuel had talked with God as a kid around my age. I prayed and prayed that God would talk to me. Eventually a warm sensation spread through my body. I started feeling a vibration in my chest on the opposite side of my heart. A "voice" broke through the tension. It said "You will be a man of peace,____ , peace", and then it started to fade away. Since then I've taken part in healing people and praying over them a couple times. This stuff does exist!

Hola mi hombre. If you're a traditionalist Catholic you serve the great Whore, not the Lord. Enjoy your siesta though!

from an outsider perspective both catholics and protestants are retarded for constantly fighting desu
the more you fight the more you kill your shared religion

Catholicism is for faggits. Be Protestant. Fuck church. Win.

Hell it is then.

>it says as long you have faith you will be saved
Lol what mate?
James 2:14-18 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

Prots aren't Christian lad. We don't have a shared religion.

Catholicism isn't viable in the long term simply because theres too many shitskin adherents and no rules saying that only whites can be members of the priesthood. While we might get some based men out of nations like Poland, the fact of the matter is that the mestizo filth in the Americas will continually produce Catholic leaders who are pro-racemixing, pro-liberalism and will attempt to use the Church to advance a spic agenda.

>If you're not a traditionalist Catholic you are going to hell
Have an upvote. Please excommunicate any Catholic who doesn't believe this. I'm a (non-zionist) protestant, but I really do respect this attitude.

Religion is not fashion. You don't "pick a religion" because it "suits you", but because you've determined it's true.

hey you reading this, look up the Waldensian massacres propagated by catholics. that should tell you a lot

Cont.
James 2:19-26 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

>doesnt want to sodomize little boys
>doesnt want to let gays into the church
>doesnt want to take down crosses of jesus because it offends the new popes vision of the catholic church
>claim atheists are going to heaven
Hell sounds better

You're misinterpreting this verse. It says that just as in earier books that "You shall know them by their fruits". It is very obvious that one does not have faith if their works do not show it to be so. That is what the verse says in summary my friend.

I don't get into him much but this all sounds very Jordan Peterson-ey. Am i right?

Could you give me a gestalt?