Shut it down!
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
Nobody's asking your opinion and what any person, be it Catholic or Protestant thinks, is irrelevant here. I'm doing internal critique of the RC position. Catholics can't reject infallible teachings of the Holy Roman See. Vatican II's Nostra Aetate is such a teaching. Case closed.
What? Do you understand how apostolic and papal succession works? RC believe each pope to be equal in authority and jurisdiction to Peter. Stop trolling me please.
What did you say devil's little humper?
Deboonking your stupid cult makes me a jew now? I'm sorry I exposed RC as the judaizers they are using Vatican's own documents. Meanwhile my Church has always followed the Church Fathers who were critical of the jews and are considered antisemitic today. Even recent Saints continue that tradition and talk openly about the jews.
I'm not surprised you listen to the nutcase Bro Nathaniel.
Found your debunking guide! 🤣
No arguments or counters, just low effort trolling. You're not winning here.
Yes, and no pope every said any teaching was infallible, they only said some teachings would be infallible if conditions are met but they never told us infallibly that all those conditions have ever been met. Simon didn't say. Not a troll.
To criticize RC for rejecting beliefs held to be infallible misses the point. The correct critique of the RC position is that the popes let everyone think infallible teachings had been issued, and then let them argue freely over how many (one, two, or hundreds), but Simon never said any infallible teachings had been issued. The pope always waits until everyone agrees or is dead and then declares the doctrine, he's much cagier than you give him credit for.
Refer to my comment where I quote Vatican I. Official Vatican teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Catholics have been told but they play dumb because they want to larp as protestants going against the Pope's teaching when it doesn't suit them.
Again, even if they were non-infalliable, they require religious and intellectual submission by all Catholics and it's absolutely inadmissible to denounce them publicly. This is an affront to the magisterium.
I told you what Vatican I says. When he meets the conditions, his speech is infallible. But he's never infallibly stated that he's met the conditions. There are zero official (ex cathedra) teachings. That's the whole game, and it was discovered by Irish Protestants shortly after Vatican I was first analyzed.
Catholics have always been free to speak against the magisterium up until the hierarchy actually cracks down, and that's true during the first millennium too. The pope could never rein in everybody so instead he (does the same thing as the fake media and the science cabal and) gets everyone to think that only his group is authoritative without ever saying so or proving it.
Funny, when I criticize Catholics for breaking the magisterium, they just tell me (their consciences rule) that they didn't break it, proving my point of private interpretation that seeks to follow and build on tradition. But they've missed that point because they've been blinded to when they're responsible for speaking infallibly (often) versus when the pope is (never). Being my own pope, I know that everything I say is responsible to be as infallible as possible, so I have the greater seriousness in my statements.
That's false. Any official pronunciation made by the Vatican is ex cathedra by definition. Anything starting with "We declare, pronounce, and define" is considered infallible doctrinal teaching. Examples of ex cathedra statements are Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
That line of defense worked before Vatican I. But it asserts that Catholics must submit to all teachings dealing with faith and morals so no more of that bs.
The crux of the matter is no single person or a group of Catholics can go against the Pope and dispute his teachings, even if they are not ex cathedra. Such an action defies the essence of the papacy which places ultimate authority in one guy in Rome, i.e. it's centralized. The system stands and falls with this guy.