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 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.
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.
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.
Whatever, if you were after the truth you'd be interested in the arguments destroying your position. But I'm convinced people choose to be ignorant willingly and not because they lack information. It's not an intellectual but a moral problem. Have fun with your skittles stabbie pushing immigration promoting pdf socialist papacy and close your eyes for reality.
I don't know who you mean as a gay Jewish drafter of Nostra Aetate, perhaps you're merely metaphorically referring to Jesuit Augustin Bea.
I mean Fr. Gregory Baum and I'm absolutely literal.
RCC is full of gays and pdfs running sex trafficking operations so no surprise there.
Fair enough. I never use scored.co
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.
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.
No arguments or counters, just low effort trolling. You're not winning here.
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.
Just watch the video. The winter solstice doesn't even coincide with Christmas in the Julian calendar. The nativity of Christ was determined by calculating the date of the Annunciation and adding 9 months. This happened in early 3th c. Sol Invictus was instituted by Aurelian to counter Christianity decades after Christians celebrated Christmas.
And as a Protestant I say there are zero faith and moral doctrinal teachings (but you can be a good Catholic and think there's only one in all history).
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.
Sure, but Simon didn't say u/RealWildRanter was a heretic, and neither Orthodox nor Catholics are allowed to make their own judgments and call them the Church's judgment. See how easy it is?
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.
Of course everyone can view the edits you've made. Why do you play dumb when you can verify this by clicking on the eraser on my comments?
No retardstein, Catholics don't owe complete obedience to the Pope.
I love it when Catholics are not aware of their own religion. Here's Vatican I:
when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals;
We do only on religious matters where we believe he to be infallible.
No, according to Vatican I you have to submit to **all faith and moral ** doctrinal teachings with humility. Besides, how is the covenantal relation of jews to God, or of Muslims and Hindus worshipping the same God as Christians (ecumenism) not a religious teaching? Trad Cath cope is hilarious. I know your system and documents better than you do because I did my research before deciding what the true Church is.
It's also in the canons. Canon 720 states that anyone who doesn't submit to teachings taught by a solemn judgment (like papal definition) or by the ordinary and universal magisterium is a heretic. You're a heretic according to the definitions of your own Church, dude. According to Canon 752, even non-infalliable papal teachings require religious submission of intellect and will (Nostra Aetate is an infallible doctrinal teaching though - every single f-ing word in it).
Now cope and seethe more foreskinstein.
Nostra Aetate, which you're bound to if you call yourself a Catholic:
“True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”
“Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”
And 1985 Vatican document “Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis”
“The Church believes that Christ, who died and rose for all, can and must be the center of her preaching. However, she also recognizes that the mystery of Israel remains, according to St. Paul (cf. Rom 11:25–29), a mystery of divine election.”
“The Church, which rejects nothing of what is true and holy in other religions, regards with sincere respect that religious self-understanding of Judaism. In preaching and catechesis, therefore, the Church should take care not to present the Jews as rejected or accursed by God.”
And I publicly deny the Nostra Aetate as sacrilegious for absolving jews for the killing of our Lord like everyone used to do before the Vatican II.
Congratulations - you're a schismatic protestant. Catholics are in no position to criticize the infallible teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. By rejecting Vatican II, you're contradicting Vatican I also which places you outside of the Church. Do I have to quote the document for you?
If you really were a Protestant you'd have no qualms with that which leads me to believe you're another evangelical scum or worse a shape shifter like SwampRangers.
Do you even read my replies? I've said multiple times I'm Eastern Orthodox. Do you even know what this is? You can look up my comment history and see me arguing with SwampRangers over his evangelical positions.
Ironically you edited this post too so I don't know what was your original intent. In cases such as this the burden of proof falls on you as you destroyed evidence thus indicating that you want to hide wrongdoings.
Dude, aren't you aware edits are visible here (by clicking on the eraser)?
There's no point in debating with yet another dishonest jew.
You shouldn't have any problems with it though because the Vatican condemns antisemitism and believes jews have covenantal relationship with God :clown:
What part I edited that changed the meaning? Care to quote it here? As if people can't check and see it themselves that you're lying, you dirty jesuit?
I know you won't provide it so here:
It has to do with the jews - original
It has to do with the guests (the jews) - edit
Btw, as per Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium your Church forbids proselytizing jews because it doesn't classify Judaism as a false religion and holds that they have a functioning covenant with God. Nostra Aetate was written by a gay jesuit jew. If you're Catholic you have to submit to that teaching. Trad caths SSPX types are schismatic protestants basically. Face it, your Church has defected and this is the proof it's not the true Church which will last until the end of times.
Lol, Peter is the rock but he's nothing like the RC Pope figure. The rest of the apostles were given the same authority as Peter two chapters later in Mathew.
You realize if papal supremacy was a thing in the first millennium, there would be no need for ecumenical councils because the Petrine See alone would determine what the right doctrines and dogma is. Not to mention Alexandria and Antioch are also Petrine Sees. So if Peter is what makes Rome special how come the rest aren't up there?
You think you're somehow better than or superior to most Catholics when in fact you're just like most of them as you don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
What? You have no clue what the Eastern Orthodox Church (which is identical to the Early Church) teaches. Have you red the Church Fathers? Why do you argue over things you don't have knowledge of?
You obviously don't know much about the Early Church history then because it had synodal structure and papal supremacy wasn't a thing. It surely wasn't a geopolitical entity with an army and a bank. You literally updated the Nicene creed that was dogmatized at the first and second ecumenical councils and you have the balls to call the Orthodox schismatics?
But I don't even have to go to debating history because it's the RCC after Vatican II is in obvious contradiction with prior papal teachings. This is a defeater for the entire system.
You mean the Church that supports and promotes socialism, skittles, globalism, stabbies, climate change and which has Popes praying in mosques towards Mecca and which claims Muslims worship the same God as Christians? That can't be right.
Everything works up to a point dude. If they eventually come to your house and shoot you in the back of the head, then what? "Ooh, look at that - bitcoin didn't save you from the bullet." BTC is not a silver bullet but it's the only shot at future sound money that's not gay ass fiat CBDC.
Do you even know what fiat is dumbass? BTC is not and will never be centrally controlled by a corporation or the government, nor can it be inflated via money printing you stupid nazi troll.
This Sunday happens to be the day that the The Parable of the Wedding Feast from Mathew 22 is read during divine liturgy. It has to do with the guests (the jews) refusing to go to the banquet that was prepared for them (by the OT prophets) and the groom (Christ) inviting people from the town and the streets (gentiles) instead to feast with Him.
Do you now understand why jews hate Christianity so much and how retarded people who claim Christianity to be a jewish psy op sound?
Sure, if it comes to the government unplugging your electricity and internet bitcoin won't be an option. I'll be moving to a country where that's not the case.
You're disagreeing with me rn. Are you a troll? No. So it isn't just about disagreeing, is it?
It's not just about his beliefs but about the mode and patterns of interaction. There are telltale signs.
He's doing it to elicit a reaction. Trolls do that, just ignore him.
Do whatever you believe is right. But don't come bitching in a few years about being financially enslaved to the beast system.
Keep quite, serf. Get ready to be ass swabbed by Big Brother to get your CBDC credits.
No such thing as Rome's primacy. There never was such a thing in the first millennium. It was always "first among equals" honorary title and didn't pertain to ecclesiological superiority so that's a word concept fallacy. You should know that the Vatican has admit the Early Church didn't operate under Rome's primacy but had a synodal autocephalous structure in the Chieti document. Papalism is a later development like much of RC dogma.