Would you support pic related's pontificate as Pius XIII who would largely revert modernist and leftist agenda of the...

Would you support pic related's pontificate as Pius XIII who would largely revert modernist and leftist agenda of the current pope and bring back militant Christianity?

Or would biological racism be stronger in you and you'd reject the successor of Peter solely on the grounds of hurr he's subhuman ape durr?

Other urls found in this thread:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html
youtube.com/watch?v=XPmBnnon0Ek
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/cardinal-sarah-every-nation-has-a-right-to-distinguish-between-refugees-and-economic-migrants/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>this is literally what catlicks have come to

Cardinal Sarah would be a refreshing change.
I would prefer Archbishop +Schneider/Burke; or really, +Fellay.
+Sarah is still fully committed to the ever-elusive "hermeneutic of continuity" which doesn't exist.

The Catholic faith has nothing to do with christianity. No one cares about your meme religion

>The Catholic faith has nothing to do with christianity
I'll wait until you throw away your entire New Testament because it was the Church that put them into canon in 382 at the Council of Rome, reaffirmed in 393 at Synod of Hippo, and reaffirmed again in 419 at Council of Carthage.

I will follow Roma to the end.
Non Nobis Domine.

>not wanting the restoration of the one true Church because you don't like blacks
Gays need to be killed.

this
fuck off schismatics

I love black people I only hate nigs but there are nigs in every race. Watch all the atheists and pagans flock in anger to this thread and others like it. Their lives rendered empty without God's embrace so they try to pop out their rage at any positive Christian movement. They will have the lowest rungs in hell reserved for them. Remember the religion that propelled us from savages.

Let's be realistic, no pope within 21st century is going to be as traditional as Fellay (who still is on the more liberal side of traditionalism). But anything to the right from Francis I would surely welcome.

>following the holy see
>schismatic
Shut your fucking pig mouth.

>caring who leads the satanic cult
Only LARPers are Catholic on Sup Forums to troll well-meaning Christians who want them to read their bible instead of sucking old man cock

I'm an atheist (was a catholic when I was a kid) and I wish I could believe in god but at this moment the materialistic worldview makes more sense to me
Still wanting for somebody to convince me the christian god exists

Agreed. What makes you say that +Fellay is on the more liberal side of traditionalism?

Yes.

You know, publishing an anthology of other people’s work doesn’t exactly make one a writer.
Voting on whether Han or Greedo shot first doesn’t make you a director.

Its not anyone's job to spoonfeed it to you if you want Christ in your life you will seek him if you are happy with an empty life you won't.

Yes, a million times yes.

Empty without gods embrace? Sounds like Catholics to me. You guys turn your backs as your priests diddle your little boys. Archie Bunker had it right when he said the Catholic Church is Satan's whore.

>Sup Forums rejects people based on race

Sup debbie downer...suzy buzzkill...isn't there a harmless nativity scene somewhere offending thine eye that needs to be plucked?

Honestly, it would be almost impossible to bring you back to Christ due to your catholic brainwashing; but through God all things are possible.
A good place to start would be reading the Bible as a work of literature rather than a holy manuscript. Some sections can be skipped as they are genealogical or legislative rather than literary.

Neither because I'm not a cuck with imaginary friends who is a slave to a fictional book

How is he a Debbie downer? He openly says he wishes he could find Christ. You're doing a great job bringing people into the fold by mocking them. That's totally Christ like.

For instance that he's more open to reconciliation with Rome than his once fellow SSPX-er Williamson.

Not to say that being liberal in this regard is somehow wrong. Maybe not even 'liberal' - let's call it 'more moderate'.

>other people's work
The Apostles were Bishops. Bishops in union with the prince of the Apostles, Peter.
We know precisely what they believed and taught by the Sacred Scriptures and the writings of their disciples.

Take Ignatius of Antioch for example. He was a personal friend of St. John and sat at his feet, and was ordained a Bishop by St. Peter. He was over a flock in Smyrna, and while being taken to martyrdom in Rome, he wrote his flock.
>earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html
He warns them to avoid the heretics (Gnostics) who do not receive Holy Communion because they do not believe it to be the actual Body and Blood of Christ. He continues, "wheresoever the Bishop is, let the people be, even as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
This was in 110AD, two hundred and seventy years before we even had an established canon of Scriptures.
The Church and the early Church are one in the same, just as a seed and the tree it produces are one and the same thing.

I'm not happy with an empty life but I can't handle the cognitive dissonance of trying to believe god exists while all the evidence points to the contrary.
I'm not trying to be spoon fed, it was shortly after I read the bible that I became an atheist because of all the magical happenings and contradictions.
If anything trying to research Christianity leads me more to disbelieve it.
That's why I ask if anyone has anything left to add because I wish god and heaven was real but I can't believe in it just because I want it to be true...

He's a Vatican II cuck, so he's just as bad as Francis. The problem is in the first principles, not in who's espousing them.

I thought you might mention Williamson. I am totally skeptical of a canonical recognition with Rome; as they are not out of the Church as it is.
I see what you mean though.

>Tfw you will never
>Literally
>NEVER
>Have a black Mormon Prophet

>being this cucked to your jew religion

>tfw there are still adherents to 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st century religions

Chapter and verse where the apostles were called catholic. It’s a fucking childish lie that can’t be substantiated.
Read the fucking word of God instead of the lies of men.

>You guys turn your backs as your priests diddle your little boys.
You don't have many originals thoughts do you? The Pope changed Vatican policy and now priests accused of molestation go to civilian authorities, not a church tribunal. There is now a churchwide council HEADED BY A VICTIM OF ABUSE, BY A PRIEST that investigates the accusations and you can bet your one dimensional mind thay after the millions in settlements people never stop trying to get a payout. I don't think priests are pedophiles, I think pedophiles became priests and now they are gravitating towards somewhere else...I'm thinking the police, politics, and hollywood.

There is no evidence whatsoever contrary to God’s existence, why are you lying to yourself?

Sarah is based. Anyone is better than the commie fag lover

Trads have to play the cards they're dealt. As stated earlier, it'd be better to have bishop Fellay become pope and do whatever Lenny Belardo did and more. But it isn't goint to happen anytime, unless popes leading up to the real traditionalist one are steadily more and more conservative. We're now almost at the lowest possible point (perhaps only Cardinal Tagle could be more liberal than Bergoglio). Sarah could be next. Then Burke. Then Schneider. Then Fellay. Then Vatican III and solemn recantation of Vatican II's mistakes

He is what we need
>Wants to reinstate Deus Vult
>black so liberals turn a blind eye to Deus Vult

>Chapter and verse where the apostles were called catholic
>Chapter and verse where the apostles were called protestant
>Chapter and verse where the apostles were called orthodox

>revert modernist agenda

sure

youtube.com/watch?v=XPmBnnon0Ek

Chapter and verse where it says that everything that must be believed must be contained in the Scriptures.
Catholic means universal, did Christ not say in Matthew 28:19 to baptize all nations?
Scripture alone didn't exist until the 16th century, bucko. You're late to the party, using Scriptures that don't even belong to your faith tradition.

>I don't care that the Roman Catholic Church is extremely influential on society and want nothing to do with it because I'm too much of an edgelord to be pragmatic.

Except I’m not trying to claim them as my own.
Though to be fair, it’s pretty fucking obvious they were “Protestants” of their time.

>Africa is the key to refresh the church against western degeneracy
>Western government tried to implement gender theory propaganda in exchange of humanitarian aid, that's disgusting.
You know he is right Sup Forums

Ideology precedes the physical substrate. Of course I would support a based black pope over a cucked yt

How about when your church is constantly at odds with and making a mockery of the words of Christ? If sola scriptural is bad, and anti-scripture is good, who do you think you work for?

There is though... human behavior, life and death can be explained based on neural networks. That rules out the soul.
In the bible, god constantly reveals himself to people and performs miracles, none of that happened in recent history. Evidence towards god not existing.
Humans and all the other species on earth can be explained as an accidental combination of chemicals evolving through survival of the fittest, that rules out god creating the world.
On the contrary, the evidence towards god (the christian god) existing is zero except for a bunch of stories that people compiled in a book.

Trads aren't Catholic. Only sedevacantists are Catholic.

well maybe precedes is the wrong word, but it's certainly more important

How do you equate if sola scriptura is wrong, then no scripture is good?
The Church safeguarded the Scriptures for over a thousand years. It is because of her and only because of her that you are able to have them.
It is Scripture AND Tradition. The traditions of the Apostles passed down throughout the ages in the deposit of faith through the Church.

>"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
>[2 Thessalonians 2:14]
Because not everything was recorded. The Scriptures are not a Creed.
>"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."
>[John 21:25]

Definitely going to need you to give me a definition for the word “evidence”. You are grasping at straws. A naturalistic explanation of anything is not evidence against something 5e precedes and supersedes the natural.

I keep forgetting Catholics are illiterate.

It's a pointless argument user. They make the word of God invalid due to their tradtion. Even in Paul's day, wolves were creeping in, yet the RCC would have us believe that the early church father's traditions were biblically sound and that we should trust them as much as the scriptures themselves. There no winning this debate. I've had it too many times.

>Remember the religion that propelled us from savages.
roman paganism?

I’ve had it many times as well. It’s psychologically fascinating and spiritually alarming. I can hardly help myself.

See

roman pagans were civilized savages.

I know. At some point I just give up.

>the glorious reformation
Fr. Luther adopted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament (effectively removing 7 books of the OT, and a few chapters of Daniel).
He removed St. James (because it conflicted with his new doctrine of faith alone).
He removed Apocalypse and Acts, only to re-add them at the behest and protest of his colleagues.
He removed Holy Matrimony as a function of the Church and relegated it to the State.
Thus when Philip of Hesse asked him if he could take a second wife (while retaining the first; polygamy), he replied that it was not against the law of God (because the Jews did it).
He was very pro-Semite when he thought that they would convert en masse via his new gospel; until they didn't, and it was burn and pillage the synagogue.
He was pro-peasant war against the Princes until it got out of hand and he saw that he himself might be subject to the pillaging (as he was holed up under the protection of the Princes), then he was against it and then wrote furiously against the raging mobs.
He was a man who could not control his passions. He was nicknamed the "nun liberator" for all the women that he was able to get to renounce their vow of chastity to God. He even married a former nun.
His inability to control his passions is why he opted for "faith alone," as he was unable to fulfill the working faith.
>whew
>obvious evidence of the holiness and just cause of Fr. Marin Luther
The only difference between Catholics and Protestants in this discourse is, we don't belong to a religion founded by a Catholic priest.

Luther=strawman. Assuming all non papists view Martin Luther the way you view the reign of the harlots. Try again papist.

That's your spiritual patrimony, sixteenth century religionist.

Evidence for X proposition is features of the world that are more likely to be there if the proposition is in fact correct than if it was not.
No obvious contact from god in recent history is a feature about the world that is more likely to be there in a world where god doesn't exist than in a world where god does exist.
Everything being explainable by physics (as opposed to ad-hoc divine intervention by an intelligent, omnipotent being such as seen in the bible) is more likely to be there in a world where god doesn't exist than in a world where god does exist.
If you are going to disregard the evidence seen in the material world and believe in whatever you want to believe then suit yourself, I wish I could handle the cognitive dissonance, but that isn't an argument.

I hope you're trolling. There were antipopes who became saints. If they thought they're real popes but despite this they were canonised, why should nowadays sedeplenists be non-Catholic? Even if they're wrong, and Francis indeed is not a pope, this is not a reason to deny their Catholicism.

Assuming adherents to the scriptures rely on human heads the way papist do. You really need to read more on pre Lutheran non conformists user, it would do you some good.

The day of the rope will come for you Civic Nationalist cucks from /r/the_Donald sooner rather than later. I swear, moderates and Centrists are somehow even worse than the (((Left))).

Fuck off back to the_Donald you raging homosexual boomer. All niggers are black, and all blacks are niggers.

The proto-protestant revolt was the Hussite rebellion, that is, Judaizers.

The next pope is going to be a nigger
No news here, except he is going to change absolutely nothing or make things even worst.

Also, sola scriptura fails a simple test of logic:

>suppose Bible is the only source of faith
>but what is Bible? It didn't fall from Heaven in a form we now know. Someone compiled it.
>if you believe this someone had the authority to put together books that very often are not even intertextual, then why, consequently, deny the authority to decree other things (dogmas, etc?)
>if, however, you believe no one had the authority to compile the Bible, how can you know which books are and which aren't part of canon?

>Even if they're wrong, and Francis indeed is not a pope, this is not a reason to deny their Catholicism.
Yes it is. The clergy lack apostolic succession, so are not real clergy and they and their followers are not in communion with the Catholic church, therefore they are not Catholic.

Would you rather:
>let a black Pope purge the liberalist infiltration that erodes Christianity from within and reverse the decay of the West
or
>let the current liberalization of the Catholic church go on and let Christianity rot from within just because a white Pope would be leading it

it depends, is he against immigration?

Catholics better fucking hope it is faith alone. I truly believe most Catholics have faith in Christ, even if their works are of the devil

Or perhaps you're referring to the Waldenses, whose beliefs were so close to the Cathars/Albigensians that many historians put them in the same category. A Gnostic type sect.
Well, the Protestants do have two things in common with the early 1st century Gnostics: rejection of the actual Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and the belief that the Church is invisible.

He is a liberal, so there will be no purge.

SSPX has, without a doubt, apostolic succession, and they believe Francis is the pope. Here you have it, sedeplenists who can't be put in the category you suggested.

This not mentioning the fact that new holy order ordination is valid. If it isn't, so shouldn't be Eastern Catholic rite that Paul VI's is based on.

Also, there were Eucharistic miracles with hosts consecrated by priests ordained according to the new rite. Bishop Williamson wrote about it approvingly.

You broke up with God and are mad he doesn’t text anymore? That’s pretty classic.

Also, why are you so smugly certain God can’t make a functioning naturalistic universe? Why is your God so small?

>Scripture St. James literally rejects faith alone without works
Not works in and of itself; otherwise an atheist could be justified. Works in faith united with Christ.
>their works are of the devil
You mean like Matthew 25?
[42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Sounds like those who didn't do anything were sent to hell. "Works of the devil," eh.

But he's going to just steal all the Vatican treasures and sell then for crack and KFC

God speaks to those who seeks. Catholics are trained from birth to never, ever look at a bible and just lap up whatever their mortal and perverted “holy father” tells them

>Also, there were Eucharistic miracles with hosts consecrated by priests ordained according to the new rite. Bishop Williamson wrote about it approvingly.
I saw this interview.
While I bring my family exclusively to the TLM, this made sense. He said, "people in the NO have souls, too." You could her a pin drop after he said that.

Of course I would support him, Francis is the pope we deserve but Sarah would be the pope we need.

Your minds are so twisted and broken. I wasn’t supporting faith alone and why do t you keep reading Matthew? More than any other book it is an admonishment and warning of Catholicism.

i thought this was the last pope. waitin' on jebus

>worshiping a dead jew on a stick

Please enlighten me.
>t. convert from protestantism; son of a pastor, who also converted; who is a son of a pastor, who converted on his deathbed
God is good.

>Also, why are you so smugly certain God can’t make a functioning naturalistic universe?

He didn't say that. There is simply no evidence that there is such god.

Cardinal Sarah is opposed to mass immigration:

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/cardinal-sarah-every-nation-has-a-right-to-distinguish-between-refugees-and-economic-migrants/

I mean, I don't know. On the one hand, it doesn't make sense to have an African Pope, or any pope that isn't European.
However, if he truly can reverse this non sense being spewed by the church, and it is a net positive, I wouldn't mind.

There used to be non-European popes before Francis. For example Peter

I would support a pope Sarah yes. The man is based as anything out there.

I don't know if a "god" made the universe, I am not arguing against that. How and why the universe was created is metaphysics and I think it's beyond our reach at least for the time being.
I am arguing against the christian god of the bible who listens to our prayers, does miracles, has a heaven and hell for eternal damnation according to the rules written on the bible, and so on.
He didn't text me before I broke up with him either... In fact he hasn't communicated with anyone in a demonstrably manner ever.
Why does he reward blind faith instead of making his presence clearly known?

And you make of yourself a god

Cdl Burke is too old and Bp Fellay is seen by Rome as an outcast. Might as well hope for Bp Williamson to become pope while we're at it.
Cdl. Sarah would be our greatest pope since at least Pius XII and Bp Schneider would wonderful.

>Might as well hope for Bp Williamson to become pope while we're at it.
Haa, yeah true.
Maybe he would.
Did you see that public rebuke from Francis to +Sarah because Sarah opposed the national Bishop conferences from handling the translations of liturgy? Sarah was absolutely correct; remember the USCCB published a catechism that stated the Jews were justified in their unbelief because God never revoked the Old Covenant.
Of course, public outcry by legitimate Catholics and theologians forced them to change it.
If they get full control of liturgical translations, we'll have sodomite hippie novus ordo masses all over the place. May as well be Lutheran/Episcopalian/Anglican/Methodist at that point.

>SSPX has, without a doubt, apostolic succession
False.

Of course they do. You're being ridiculous.
Can the pope give faculties for the Sacrament of Penance to schismatics and heretics?
No, he can't. Thus, SSPX is not in schism nor are they heretics.

Prove it

>Eucharistic miracles with hosts consecrated by priests ordained according to the new rite.
These were demonic occurrences.

>Bishop Williamson wrote about it approvingly.
"Bishop" Williamson is not Catholic, so makes sense he would approve of demonic apparitions

On what grounds do you deny him valid orders?

>Can the pope give faculties for the Sacrament of Penance to schismatics and heretics?
>No, he can't
Exactly, which is why they are not apostolic or Catholic.