If catholicism is true, then catholicism is false. Exsurge Domine, 1520:

If catholicism is true, then catholicism is false.

Exsurge Domine, 1520:

>In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion (...)

>33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

>We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.(...)

Francis, 2023:

>the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible

That's a CONTRADICTION. You cannot reconcile those statements. Papists, you are in a false church.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    something something that wasn't ex cathedra something something you're interpreting it wrong

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    The exposure of the pseudo-Isidore decretals made that obvious.

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Burning heretic beings historic practice of the church doesn't make it a doctrine of faith

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      burning heretics is not included in questions of faith and morals? because Vatican 1 asserts the magisterium and the Pope are infallible in that condition

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >because Vatican 1 asserts the magisterium and the Pope are infallible in that condition
        What specifically does it say?

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good for you that you found out the Papist church is just layers of self-contradictions. There are still people in 2023 who haven’t realized it yet. You mostly have Newman’s development doctrine to thank for this.

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >thinking Catholics care at all about contradictions or a consistent religion

    they obey the man in the funny hat because it's a big and fancy hat

    picrel:
    >WOW what a big hat
    >Everything that guy says MUST be true

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your claims prove Catholicism true as
      >Leo X had a "big funny hate"
      While
      >Francis does not own a big funny hate
      So Francis is not the main man with big funny hat

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Decrees_of_the_Vatican_Council/Part_3/Chapter_3 says "none may reopen the judgement of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgement. Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgements of the Roman Pontiffs to an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff."

    So yeah this really does look like a hard logical contradiction within Catholicism.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >So yeah this really does look like a hard logical contradiction within Catholicism.
      Well every cult with a leader whose rules are said to be infallible can still be interpreted individualistically. It's what you think the person's words mean. In fact this is a general problem of the human condition. The only thing that doesn't have this weakness is the Bible itself, since it's inspired by God.

      "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
      (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'd never read the document before and it really does sound unbelievably cultish..."none may reopen the judgement of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater".

        Full-blown weird cultishness

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the wildest part

      We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor andTeacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.[10]

      But if anyone—which may God avert!—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        It gets worse.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Also here's an article that gets more into the "godhood" claim.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have a link to that document?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, see here.

            https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Text_book_of_Church_History_A_D_1305_1/pIEeAQAAIAAJ

            Also recommend checking out Mosheim's History as well for a second perspective (An Ecclesiastical History, 1811 ed.) if you like to study church history. You can find English translations of him similar to this online. These two will help fill in a lot of details.

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Catechism is not an infallible document, that's why it can be altered. No one ever said that the pope can't say plenty of dumb shit.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Vatican I said:
      >he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church
      The Pope has the Catechism now read
      >the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible
      (Source: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html)

      He has it say "the Church teaches". This a crystal-clear ideal example of "defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church".

      ...but it contradicts an earlier such declaration, as OP points out. As such Catholicism is self-contradictory and, as such, cannot be true.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      While it's true the Cathechism is not an infallible document, it doesn't change the fact that either Rome taught something wrong and immoral for the last 2000 years, and now is "seeing the light", which would be problematic since catholicism cannot fail concerning faith and morals (the death penalty is about morals, no?) or the alternative is doing what Ed Feser is doing, rejecting the change but this also leads to problems since all catholics must follow and submit to the authority of the Pope "with docility"

      basically if you're a catholic with any understanding of the faith, this will be on your mind 24/7, and by looking at popular youtube channels or even twitter accounts, you see they talk about this tension all the time. its not some obscure document or argument, this is in the open and creating schisms in the church everywhere.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *