/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (69.27 KB 788x243 lord god the pope.jpg)
Open file (105.76 KB 708x720 >popery .jpg)
Rome mandates sodomy Anonymous 05/13/2022 (Fri) 02:18:47 No.10993
We are seeing the conclusion of what happens when you replace divine authority with human authority, when you replace the unchanging word of God with the everchanging words of men. Once upon a time in the church of Rome idolaters were a rejected minority only in the laity, over time they became the clergy and idolatry became the official position of Rome. Likewise sodomites were once rejected, but now that they are the head and the body of the Roman church (as is proven by all the rape of young boys), sodomy has become the official position of Rome, the corruption repeating. You cannot be a good papist without supporting sodomy. Perhaps they will object that there are churches which call themselves Lutheran or Presbyterian and also permit abominations. This is true, but whereas they have separated themselves from the body of Christ, the head of which is Christ, a Romanist who does not permit abominations separates himself from Rome, the head of which is the pope; because while in Christianity the standard of our faith is the word of God in scripture, the Romanist has rejected that standard in favor of what this man in Rome has to say. So he is beholden to that standard to which he would enslave us. Hence the Christian who permits sodomy rebels against God, but the papist who forbids sodomy rebels against the papacy.
If the pope says something wrong, he's wrong, doesnt change anything about the papacy nor about Christian doctrine. Popes dont have the power to change established doctrine. So, if instead of these offhand comments, the pope were to make a doctrinal statement and said that sodomy is ok, he'd just disqualify himself as pope. Which is why these modernists have to beat around the bush without fully committing. So if they are asked to explain themselves, they can say- oh, i only meant x not y. Still, these silly comments he makes are damaging enough for the faithful. We are the most unfaithful generation ever, so we get the pope we deserve. Carry the cross. Also everyone who says people are gay is wrong. Sodomy is a sin, like thievery or murder, not a born identity.
>>11002 >Popes dont have the power to change established doctrine. Again, just the collapse of papist epistemology >the pope were to make a doctrinal statement and said that sodomy is ok, he'd just disqualify himself as pope Why? Who are you to judge the pope? What gives your personal interpretation of tradition so much authority?
>>11002 >So, if instead of these offhand comments, the pope were to make a doctrinal statement and said that sodomy is ok, he'd just disqualify himself as pope. Interesting. I'd like to know more.
>>11019 >Why? Because it contradicts Catholic dogma >Who are you to judge the pope? https://catholicherald.co.uk/pope-francis-it-is-not-a-sin-to-criticise-the-pope/ >What gives your personal interpretation of tradition so much authority? The Curia has said as much. https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-burke-a-pope-who-professes-formal-heresy-would-cease-to-be-pope/
>>11067 >Because it contradicts Catholic dogma Your personal interpretation of Catholic dogma. What gives you such authority, Protestant? >The Curia has said as much. Your personal interpretation of the Curia
>>11084 Man, you're dense. There is no personal intrepation happening. It's a simple conditional statement. If x then y. If Pope does x then y happens. In this case if pope [contradicts catholic doctrine] then [he ceases to be pope]. Say the pope were to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is defined and affirmed many times, notably at the Council of Trent and in the Catechism. "[T]he body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." CCC 1374. Again, there is nothing yo interpret here. Catholic doctrine says Christ IS present. Therefore, pope denying the real presence requires no interpretation. To put is syllogistically: Catholic doctrine is A. If Pope says not A, then he is ceases to be Pope. Pope says not A. Therefore, Pope has ceased to be Pope. There is no personal interpretation of anything. It's that simple.
>>10993 >Likewise sodomites were once rejected, but now that they are the head and the body of the Roman church >hurr durr muh gays No one cares faggot, the Catholic Church could allow faggot-Marriage for all i care. Crypto-mudslimes are the only ones who obsess over Muh buttsecks, get with the times mohammadean boomer. >>11101 Cope, seethe and mald mohammadeanprotkike, you've been btfo'd a billion times.
>>11103 t. Faggot child rapist
>>11101 >In this case if pope [contradicts catholic doctrine] Why is your personal interpretation of Catholic doctrine the right one out of all 33,000 Catholic denominations?>This is defined and affirmed many times That's your personal interpretation
Open file (45.39 KB 651x421 592853b9d7665.jpg)
>>11127 >implying the Pope isn't just giving a personal interpretation which is held as true simply because he was given a funny hat to wear Go on continuing to believe in your failing order. You sin against the Holy Spirit by your presumptions that it continues to dwell in your vain rituals.
Open file (92.17 KB 1500x1200 christ chan 10.png)
Open file (12.40 MB 498x280 laugh.gif)
>>11127 >Thats your personal interpretation of the interpretation. What was understood by this doctrinal statement since it's inception? Either generations were lied to, and told something that meant something else without clarification, or the pope is going against doctrine. You tell us.
>>11148 The Pope is the mouth of God to Romanists don't you know. By right of being voted in by a college of corrupt officials he can invoke his infallible authority to make the worst of blasphemies dogma. When he says something that's deeply embarrassing for them they pretend their entire sect isn't based around submission to the office of the Papacy as an article of faith; because in truth, that's the only thing holding them back from cutting each other's throats over internal divisions.
ironically, there is nothing wrong with that quote. gay people are probably the ones who need the lord the most. gays can be in church, or wherever. the problem is the (any) church promoting homosexual behavior to appeal to a certain political group, or allowing homosexuals to be part of any sort of church authority. otherwise, there is no problem with transgendered or homosexual individuals participating as long as they are there to change their ways or understand why it is wrong and against god's design. jesus preached to, healed, and aided the poor and the sick. these people are the same. help them.
>>11152 >>11152 >the problem is the (any) church promoting homosexual behavior to appeal to a certain political group, or allowing homosexuals to be part of any sort of church authority. Homosexuality is a result of environment and genetic predisposition, it makes no sense why God would create abominations and condemn them for something he did. >there is no problem with transgendered or homosexual individuals participating Yes >as long as they are there to change their ways or understand why it is wrong and against god's design. God designed homos
>>11139 >>11140 >>11142 >Arguing over Greco-Jewish Fanfic NatSoc>christcuck
>>11164 NatSocuck :^)
>>11162 >it makes no sense why God would create abominations and condemn them for something he did. Because seeing the souls of homos burning in hell pleases him.
Open file (1.12 MB 765x988 1652068404813.png)
>>11164 >NatSoc>christcuck
>>11162 Turn or burn, homo.
>>11162 >it makes no sense why God would create abominations and condemn them for something he did. Indeed. I would suggest you are brainwashed by Jewish Corporate-controlled media and education in insisting that God Himself fashioned sodomites. Ridiculous. Now you wouldn't be trying to justify your own evil, are you Anon?
>>11164 NatSoc is political ideology you fucking nigger, not a religion
>>11168 Imagine not being able to add anything to a discussion, and having to resort to posting that image. Get off this imageboard, you no-iq niggerfaggot.
>>11185 Imagine not being able to add anything to a discussion, and having to resort to posting no image. Get off this imageboard, you no-iq niggerfaggot.
>>11185 That is how every dipshit argues. >my ideology is only for The Beautiful People (TM)(C)(R)(TM) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED >you must look like this to JOIN US >wonders why no one that looks like that wants anything to do you
>>11185 This thread isn't about your autism, nigger
>>11185 I don't need to add anything to the discussion when someone is just mocking us. Why would you take some shit post seriously. Hes clearly made up his mind that the bible is just a jewish fanfic, there is no point in arguing with retards who use the word christcuck or use name calling like you are.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?