Post: #26

We used to say "I'll be poolside" watching while civilisation burns. Well, I am poolside, living in the free life in Asia. And yet it's no fun to watch the west destroy itself.

If women are allowed into positions of leadership, the Catholic Church will be dead within a generation, and Christianity will have almost run its course in history. That's simple extrapolation from what's happened in the Anglican Church, and the general course of progressivism.

Post: #27

I posted this in the Trump thread a few months back, after Francis came mincing around with his "building walls is not Christian" bullshit.

(02-18-2016 02:18 PM)Canopus Wrote:  I've seen gas station urinals I had more respect for than Pope Francis.

If I question anyone's Christianity, it's not the guy who says he wants to protect Christians being slaughtered in the Middle East: it's the 'Pope' who tells atheists "Don't bother believing in God, you're saved anyway!" Of all the things a believer can tell a nonbeliever, this is by far the most vile, condescending, and disingenuous. I think it was Penn Jillette who said he actually loses respect for Christians who fail to reach out to nonbelievers, because it tells you they don't actually care about "salvation" for anyone but themselves. Think about it: if you're a Christian, and you believe the only path to eternal life is through accepting Christ, you are willfully damning your non-Christian brothers and sisters by not inviting them to join the faith. Any self-respecting atheist will walk away from this pablum with less respect for Christianity, not more. That the supposed successor to Paul would show such blithe disregard for a guiding principle of his own faith is pathetic.

But that's Francis for you: a Pope more interested in getting brownie points from the gay community, /r/atheism, and the I Fucking Love Science generation of slackers and narcissists than "spreading the good news." He's a Theme Park Christian, declawed and docile, mewling out feel-good headlines that dovetail with public sentiment while utterly uninterested in protecting his followers or standing up for his faith in a world rapidly discarding it.

Trump may not be a particularly devout or versed Christian, but at least he weighs anchor with his positions. You know he'll stick to his guns. Outside his (mandated) beliefs on abortion, Francis' positions start and stop with whatever will endear him to people who couldn't name five books from the New Testament.

Christianity would be better off with four years of Trump than forty with Francis.

My opinion has not changed.

Screw this guy.

Post: #28

(05-12-2016 08:12 PM)RawGod Wrote:  We used to say "I'll be poolside" watching while civilisation burns. Well, I am poolside, living in the free life in Asia. And yet it's no fun to watch the west destroy itself.

If women are allowed into positions of leadership, the Catholic Church will be dead within a generation, and Christianity will have almost run its course in history. That's simple extrapolation from what's happened in the Anglican Church, and the general course of progressivism.

Guess we better start going after those Muslim girls then. Yeah, if Catholicism dies, Christianity will be done. I don't think the Orthodox Church has the numbers to take its place.

Post: #29

(05-12-2016 08:37 PM)Canopus Wrote:  I posted this in the Trump thread a few months back, after Francis came mincing around with his "building walls is not Christian" bullshit.

(02-18-2016 02:18 PM)Canopus Wrote:  I've seen gas station urinals I had more respect for than Pope Francis.

If I question anyone's Christianity, it's not the guy who says he wants to protect Christians being slaughtered in the Middle East: it's the 'Pope' who tells atheists "Don't bother believing in God, you're saved anyway!" Of all the things a believer can tell a nonbeliever, this is by far the most vile, condescending, and disingenuous. I think it was Penn Jillette who said he actually loses respect for Christians who fail to reach out to nonbelievers, because it tells you they don't actually care about "salvation" for anyone but themselves. Think about it: if you're a Christian, and you believe the only path to eternal life is through accepting Christ, you are willfully damning your non-Christian brothers and sisters by not inviting them to join the faith. Any self-respecting atheist will walk away from this pablum with less respect for Christianity, not more. That the supposed successor to Paul would show such blithe disregard for a guiding principle of his own faith is pathetic.

But that's Francis for you: a Pope more interested in getting brownie points from the gay community, /r/atheism, and the I Fucking Love Science generation of slackers and narcissists than "spreading the good news." He's a Theme Park Christian, declawed and docile, mewling out feel-good headlines that dovetail with public sentiment while utterly uninterested in protecting his followers or standing up for his faith in a world rapidly discarding it.

Trump may not be a particularly devout or versed Christian, but at least he weighs anchor with his positions. You know he'll stick to his guns. Outside his (mandated) beliefs on abortion, Francis' positions start and stop with whatever will endear him to people who couldn't name five books from the New Testament.

Christianity would be better off with four years of Trump than forty with Francis.

My opinion has not changed.

Screw this guy.

Let's make it a 8 years.

Post: #30

Next up

Pope Caitlyn

Post: #31

(05-12-2016 04:28 PM)Kona Wrote:  I always read on this forum, and in other places about liberals pushing to normalize pedophilia. I'd say the catholic church is way ahead of their time on this one.

It just confuses the hell out of me how so many people take Catholicism seriously after all of the bullshit they've pulled.

This pope isn't trying to liberalize the church, he's trying to keep it going for a few more generations.

Aloha!

The pederast scandals were damn good examples of why the Church's previous tradition of excluding homosexuals from serving in its priesthood was a sound policy. Certain bishops and archbishops became lax and allowed some known or suspected homosexuals to serve on and the result is thousands of boys ended up as victims.

If you don't understand the appeal of Catholicism to its sincere adherents you clearly aren't well-read in European history nor have you spent much time in strongly Catholic areas inside countries like Spain, Poland, or Italy. The Church has, at times, been a solid foundation of support for many European communities for literally over a thousand years.

I am not a Catholic; I'm not even a Christian but I'm completely disgusted with what the Church is becoming. My dog in the fight? It's a symbol of Western Civilization, and it has done good deeds along with its bad. It is something that could inspire Catholics to be strong men who value European civilization.

It is now a subverted, anti-European organization. At least its upper echelons are. This "liberalization" is nothing more than the intent to destroy-- first itself and then Europe. Keeping it going? The Popes and Saints of the past would shit their pants in rage if they were here to see the blatant heresy being espoused as Church doctrine at this moment. It's only a matter of time before the priests preaching on Sunday mornings are short-haired lesbian atheists like the wishy-washy Protestant denominations have now.

Post: #32

I dont see what the problem is here.

Post: #33

To those who're saying that the majority of Catholics will condone this, think again.
Most won't care one way or the other.
Those who realize the implications will hate it.
Only a small minority will like it.

Post: #34

(05-12-2016 08:37 PM)Canopus Wrote:  I posted this in the Trump thread a few months back, after Francis came mincing around with his "building walls is not Christian" bullshit.

(02-18-2016 02:18 PM)Canopus Wrote:  I've seen gas station urinals I had more respect for than Pope Francis.

If I question anyone's Christianity, it's not the guy who says he wants to protect Christians being slaughtered in the Middle East: it's the 'Pope' who tells atheists "Don't bother believing in God, you're saved anyway!" Of all the things a believer can tell a nonbeliever, this is by far the most vile, condescending, and disingenuous. I think it was Penn Jillette who said he actually loses respect for Christians who fail to reach out to nonbelievers, because it tells you they don't actually care about "salvation" for anyone but themselves. Think about it: if you're a Christian, and you believe the only path to eternal life is through accepting Christ, you are willfully damning your non-Christian brothers and sisters by not inviting them to join the faith. Any self-respecting atheist will walk away from this pablum with less respect for Christianity, not more. That the supposed successor to Paul would show such blithe disregard for a guiding principle of his own faith is pathetic.

But that's Francis for you: a Pope more interested in getting brownie points from the gay community, /r/atheism, and the I Fucking Love Science generation of slackers and narcissists than "spreading the good news." He's a Theme Park Christian, declawed and docile, mewling out feel-good headlines that dovetail with public sentiment while utterly uninterested in protecting his followers or standing up for his faith in a world rapidly discarding it.

Trump may not be a particularly devout or versed Christian, but at least he weighs anchor with his positions. You know he'll stick to his guns. Outside his (mandated) beliefs on abortion, Francis' positions start and stop with whatever will endear him to people who couldn't name five books from the New Testament.

Christianity would be better off with four years of Trump than forty with Francis.

My opinion has not changed.

Screw this guy.

This ^^^^

Popes have a lifetime tenor and at 79 Francis may still have another 10 years in him. He of all people should understand that the three prime directives of sustaining a religion are:

1) Expansion
2) Preservation (tenets & territory)
3) NO WIMMIIN

This Argentinian bastard has violated all three rules in little over three years. Which makes you wonder the state of the roman catholic church by the time he finally kicks the bucket.

Post: #35

(05-12-2016 10:27 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  It is now a subverted, anti-European organization. At least its upper echelons are. This "liberalization" is nothing more than the intent to destroy-- first itself and then Europe. Keeping it going? The Popes and Saints of the past would shit their pants in rage if they were here to see the blatant heresy being espoused as Church doctrine at this moment. It's only a matter of time before the priests preaching on Sunday mornings are short-haired lesbian atheists like the wishy-washy Protestant denominations have now.

EXACTLY my point. I understand that many of you guys, just like me, are not religious. But understand that the catholic church, up until Pope 'The Cuck' Francis, was the bastion of conservative/traditional values. Once that one is gone and they start turning churches into abortion clinics, civic centers, or worse - mosques, then the jig is up. Our ability to bounce back from the current liberal nightmare will be greatly diminished. We need a strong Christian church on our side as it is the only organization left that, at its core, represents the type of society we want to live in.

Post: #36

(05-12-2016 05:01 PM)Moto Wrote:  Where, I pray thee tell, is the true and original faith practiced?

I would say it is in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, and perhaps Orthodox.

Eastern Rite aka "Uniate" churches are just Roman Catholic churches that keep all the exterior trappings of Orthodoxy to lure in Orthodox. Roman Catholics also love to steal Orthodox icons/relics, like the Our Lady of Kazan, (apparently God listens to them more when they pray before Orthodox holy items), whereas Orthodox have no interest in possessing anything of their post-Great Schism "stuff."

Post: #37

(05-13-2016 02:53 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 05:01 PM)Moto Wrote:  Where, I pray thee tell, is the true and original faith practiced?

I would say it is in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, and perhaps Orthodox.

Eastern Rite aka "Uniate" churches are just Roman Catholic churches that keep all the exterior trappings of Orthodoxy to lure in Orthodox. Roman Catholics also love to steal Orthodox icons/relics, like the Our Lady of Kazan, (apparently God listens to them more when they pray before Orthodox holy items), whereas Orthodox have no interest in possessing anything of their post-Great Schism "stuff."

Guys - it doesn't really matter - you are not seeing the forest for all the trees. The point of this thread is that the RCC has always represented Christianity or at minimum up to this day is accepted by a large number of Christians. Do you truly believe that your favorite little side branch of Christianity will survive if the RCC falls? The RCC is the big domino here that takes everyone else down with it.

Post: #38

(05-12-2016 12:22 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Women may have been deacons in the early church. Paul didn't write 1 or 2 Timothy and the author is responding to something like Gnosticism.

Deacon means servant. So, yes, women were "deacons" and even called that by Paul (Rom. 16:1), but they weren't the ordained "Deacons" just under Bishops and Priests. Over time women who aided in the baptism of women became known as "deacons," but that minor office that fell out of use because eventually most of the Roman empire was already Christian, so adult converts became rare, and most baptisms were of babies. The female "deacon" role in baptism was like that of Jewish women in the triple immersions of female converts to Judaism, getting the woman undressed and dressed again and trying to minimize any temptation to the Rabbi.

http://www.mayyimhayyim.org/using-the-mi...conversion

"As a mitzvah, or commanded action, immersion for conversion requires the recitation of a Hebrew blessing and the testimony of a witness, whose responsibility is to support the candidate and make sure that he / she has submerged every part of the body.

"The ceremony is under the supervision of the sponsoring rabbi, who almost never serves as the witness. In all cases, women are witnessed by women; men by other men."

Post: #39

(05-13-2016 03:03 AM)redpillage Wrote:  Guys - it doesn't really matter - you are not seeing the forest for all the trees. The point of this thread is that the RCC has always represented Christianity or at minimum up to this day is accepted by a large number of Christians. Do you truly believe that your favorite little side branch of Christianity will survive if the RCC falls? The RCC is the big domino here that takes everyone else down with it.

Why yes I do think we'll do just fine, in fact, better than ever as more and more Roman Catholics will convert. My "favorite little side branch of Christianity" only has 400 million members and the largest country on the planet under the most respected ruler alive. We'll make do, somehow.

Post: #40

(05-13-2016 03:20 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 03:03 AM)redpillage Wrote:  Guys - it doesn't really matter - you are not seeing the forest for all the trees. The point of this thread is that the RCC has always represented Christianity or at minimum up to this day is accepted by a large number of Christians. Do you truly believe that your favorite little side branch of Christianity will survive if the RCC falls? The RCC is the big domino here that takes everyone else down with it.

Why yes I do think we'll do just fine, in fact, better than ever as more and more Roman Catholics will convert. My "favorite little side branch of Christianity" only has 400 million members and the largest country on the planet under the most respected ruler alive. We'll make do, somehow.

Yeah, to Islam.

Post: #41

(05-13-2016 03:20 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 03:03 AM)redpillage Wrote:  Guys - it doesn't really matter - you are not seeing the forest for all the trees. The point of this thread is that the RCC has always represented Christianity or at minimum up to this day is accepted by a large number of Christians. Do you truly believe that your favorite little side branch of Christianity will survive if the RCC falls? The RCC is the big domino here that takes everyone else down with it.

Why yes I do think we'll do just fine, in fact, better than ever as more and more Roman Catholics will convert. My "favorite little side branch of Christianity" only has 400 million members and the largest country on the planet under the most respected ruler alive. We'll make do, somehow.

I agree, Ortohodoxy's autocephalous nature protects it somewhat from outside influences, unlike the Catholic Church, which is universal in nature. As for other Christian denominations like protestants, anglicans and evangelics, they've already shot themselves in the foot long ago.

In any case, if things continue this way, then I think we're not far away from things such as female bishops and Catholic gay weddings.

Post: #42

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Post: #43

Sounds like the ye olde protestants were right: The Pope is the anti-christ (or at least its equivalent).

Post: #44

Why would the Roman Catholic Church self destruct so astonishingly after two thousand years of strength? It is a similar to the destruction of Western civilization we are witnessing right now. People and nations usually don't destroy themselves, but are destroyed by their enemies. And when an enemy is smaller in numbers, a good strategy is to infiltrate and subvert. What links this together? To destroy the West you need to destroy the social fabric, the shared identity found in religious institutions.

Here's an interesting article from The Jewish Daily Forward:

"Converts Who Changed the Church"

Converts who changed the Church? Why did they convert only to change it?

Quote:Fifty years ago this fall, Catholic bishops gathered in Rome for a council that would bring the church “up to date” by making it speak more directly to the modern world. After three years of deliberation, the bishops voted on and accepted statements that permitted the faithful to attend mass in their own languages, encouraged lay reading of scripture and entreated Catholics to think of other religions as sources of truth and grace. The council referred to the church as “people of God” and suggested a more democratic ordering of relations between bishops and the pope. It also passed a statement on non-Christian religions, known by its Latin title, Nostra Aetate (“In our times”). Part four of this declaration, a statement on the Jews, proved most controversial, several times almost failing because of the opposition of conservative bishops.

A critical analysis of European Christian institutions, you say? Using hocus pocus language to dismantle and replace the culture, of course only to modernize and be more inclusive. Where have I seen this before? So what did part four say about the Jews?

Quote:Citing the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, Nostra Aetate called the Jews “most beloved” by God. These words seem commonsensical today, but they staged a revolution in Catholic teaching.

Common sense! How could those silly Christians not have recognized before that the people following another religion were in fact the most beloved? I am glad we could clear that up.

Quote:As I discovered while researching my recently published book, “From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965,” these experts did not begin their work in the 1960s. From outposts in Austria and Switzerland, several had tried to formulate Catholic arguments against anti-Semitism under the shadow of Nazism three decades earlier. They were as unrepresentative of Catholicism as one can imagine. Not only were they, Central Europeans, brave enough to stand up to Hitler when it counted, but they mostly had not been born Catholic. The Catholics who helped bring the church to recognition of the continuing sanctity of the Jewish people were converts, many of them from Jewish families.

Surprise, surprise.

Quote:Most important was Johannes Oesterreicher, born in 1904 into the home of the Jewish veterinarian Nathan and his wife, Ida, in Stadt-Liebau, a German-language community in northern Moravia. As a boy, he took part in Zionist scouting and acted as elected representative of the Jews in his high school, but then, for reasons that remain inexplicable (he later said he ”fell in love with Christ”), Oesterreicher took an interest in Christian writings, and under the influence of a priest later martyred by the Nazis (Max Josef Metzger) he became a Catholic and then a priest.

Utterly inexplicable.

Quote:They were continuing a trend going back to the First Vatican Council in 1870, when the brothers Lémann — Jews who had become Catholics and priests — presented a draft declaration on relations between the church and Jews, stating that Jews “are always very dear to God” because of their fathers and because Christ has issued from them “according to the flesh.”

Say whatever you want but that has been a great strategy.

P.S. The current Pope is a social justice Jesuit.

Post: #45

(05-12-2016 05:01 PM)Moto Wrote:  Where, I pray thee tell, is the true and original faith practiced?

I would say it is in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, and perhaps Orthodox. These are the only place that maintain the ancient liturgy. The form of worship, the mass itself, is crucial. The original faith never was "sola scriptura." There wasn't even a unified written scripture. But maybe I'm making false implications of what you're getting at, so back to my question.

(05-12-2016 02:31 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  It was never the Church in the first place. If that weren't obvious to you, you haven't studied history or realized all of the innovations it created, especially in the last 100-150 years, which made it even more obvious. Ever since Charlemagne instituted cultural and political power to subvert the original, the Franco-Roman Church has been anything but "Catholic."

If that's not enough for you, ask yourself why it spawned 30,000 reforming denominations.

Meanwhile, the original ancient faith is still where it's always been, and unchanged in doctrine and practice.

The uniate (Eastern Rite) churches are orthodox, have the same theology as the orthodox, but politically were affiliated with Rome via Kings (Poland/Lithuania as an example. They have the same liturgies as the Eastern Orthodox, as you point out, and they haven't ever changed.

These are the only churches that even have a chance of maintaining the true faith, since the others (as the other poster said, Church of Rome) were corrupted long ago, and made many innovations long ago. For that reason, it's obvious that this kind of thing would come up.

Incidentally, most [if not all] honest people who are from Byzantine "Catholic" traditions, when they do their homework and realize history as well as the fact that they are exactly the same as the orthodox ... just become orthodox, instead playing the weird charade game.

As I said before, there are savvy posters here. Moto just proved to be one. Kudos.

Post: #46

(05-12-2016 09:06 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 08:12 PM)RawGod Wrote:  We used to say "I'll be poolside" watching while civilisation burns. Well, I am poolside, living in the free life in Asia. And yet it's no fun to watch the west destroy itself.

If women are allowed into positions of leadership, the Catholic Church will be dead within a generation, and Christianity will have almost run its course in history. That's simple extrapolation from what's happened in the Anglican Church, and the general course of progressivism.

Guess we better start going after those Muslim girls then. Yeah, if Catholicism dies, Christianity will be done. I don't think the Orthodox Church has the numbers to take its place.

There are hundreds of millions of Orthodox.

The inevitable conclusion is actually that people realize and are almost forced into the honesty that the eastern orthodox churches were always the original, unchanging, ancient faith. If they don't, they were never really religious or "catholic" to begin with. Anyone who actually wants to be a christian still will by default gravitate to what is now called orthodoxy. Like all the other anglicans and protestants who smelled shit in the water long ago.

Post: #47

I don't think that Roman Catholic Church in particular and Christianity in general is failing because of some subversion by Jews or Illuminati or anything. I belive this religion is breaking down because it simply has lived it's natural lifespan like every imperfect religion, idea or movement does. There might have been some subversions, but it's just like an old human body that dies from sickness it could easily resist in youth, because it's immune system has simply bacame too old and impotent to resist the attacks and perhaps even has developed and autoimmune reaction over time.

As someone who was raised as a Catholic from childhood, and has seen the inside from a very analytical and red pill perspective I can see that while it does promote some strong ideas which are very much in accord with natural law, the very fabric of RCC and Christian teachings is imperfect and also contain some beliefs that are contrary to natural law and therefore are destined to be destroyed, because in the end - nature always wins.

For example:

It is actually a great misconception that Christianity promotes a patriarchal nuclear family. The truth is that Christianity promotes a cuckold type of relationship. Take a look at the image of the Holy family in christianity, which is meant to be an example and inspire all christians:


   

Do you see a strong alpha father with a loving wife and a rich set of small children that are clearly his and are all happy to learn from their parents how to be masculine boys and femine girls just like their parents?

No - what you see is a sexless couple who are having just one child who is being put in the center and is teaching and bossing his parents around rather then learning from them. The husband is beta, sexless and has non-threatening female like posture, while his wife is preoccupied with her only precious child who is concieved from an absent alpha super-breeder who is so happy that puny mortals do the dirty work of rising his brat for him.

This concept was actually very useful in middle ages and surely helped many noble sires to hide their bastard children into peasant families for some extra acqres of land. Why would the farmer refuse the lord to whom God has given his position to visit his wife a few times a year when he got some extra bonuses for that and after all the venerated St. Joseph did the same? So he bites his lip, avoids eye contact with his wife and enjoys the prestige his material wealth gives him over other poor peasants, while he curses himself and his Lord at night and then attones for that cursing on Sunday's confession telling priest all the dirty little secrets, crimes and tought crimes?

In other words Christianity is a slave religion for subjugating lower class men before the feudal lords. Christianity is a prototype for modern feminism. This is especialy true for Catholicism with it's veneration (actually worship altrough they deny it) of Virgin Mary. This is more milder form, but not so different from how modern feminism is used to enslave men to government trough women.

Not to mention Christianity has this huge backdoor of Israel being the chosen nation to use for jews to hack this religion, installed from the very beginning.

The truth is that our ideas about natural, nuclear and patriarchal family are older than christianity and come from our European pagan heritage, like many other things that we attribute to christianity today, while Holywood is making us think that Vikings and other pagans practiced devils threesomes in their "Historical shows" which are just another piece of a very rotten ropaganda.

Christianity has many other things that are against natural law - celibacy for healthy men and disconnection from living according to nature are among them.

I recommend that we stop feeling this false nostalgia for Christianity espacially since we are not real Christians. We are masculine men who bed meny women and break many Christian laws. We have the spirit of ancient tribal patriarchs who lived according to the true natural laws, created by the true God who reaveals himself trough these laws, not trough dogmas created by sexless man in dresses.

Christianity will fall and either Islam will dominate the world or we we reinvent our European national tribal morals that hold the ideas of maritial fidelity, chastity, patriarchy, masculinity and virtue much better then Christianity ever did.

Post: #48

^^^ +1 Rep point to Mage for a stellar post.

Catholicism, and more broadly Christianity (and really to a certain extent all religion) seeks to make betas of us all. It's goal is to make us subservient and obedient; to follow commandments, and to bow and beseech before an omnipotent power beyond our ability to comprehend.

Whatever can be said about its promotion of "traditional" values and male/female relationships, the basic belief of every major religion is that God exists as the ultimate Alpha. Man's relationship to God is essentially that of subject to master. God decrees, man has no choice but to fall in line — or perish.

I've long held that religion is OK for women, and the poor & uneducated, but is unbecoming in everyone else. (Incidentally, I've never met a man who is fervently religious whom I didn't find to be effeminate and/or crazy.)

Men should be focused on conquering the natural world — and one does that by mastering science and learning to think rationally, not by putting one's faith in the so-called "supernatural."

I grew up Catholic, and attended Catholic schools. I'm old enough to have had nuns as teachers in grade school. If I had to express my overwhelming impression of Catholic clergy in a word, it would be: sexless. Remember that the Church requires its priests & nuns to essentially swear off sex permanently. The Pope is a celibate man. Perhaps there is some sensible justification for this requirement — I've never heard it.

Post: #49

You really have to take the long view in things like this. It's not like the Church hasn't survived "interesting" times before. In the 4th Century the Arian heresy had hold of nearly the entire Church hierarchy, and the support of the Emperors. Even the then Pope, Liberius may have temporarily acquiesced to the heresy under heavy pressure and persecution by the Arians. It was only through the fervid opposition of a few bishops such as St. Anthanasius of Alexandria and St. Hilary of Poitiers, both of whom were exiled that the Heresy was beaten back. In fact St. Anthanasius was exiled several times and was even excommunicated at one point. Eventually though, orthodoxy won through.

The Reformation was another crisis that the Church faced and survived. In that case the there were several heresies floating about but through the Counter-Reformation the Church was able to renew itself and contain the "damage".

In our time, the problem is "Modernism" labelled as the "synthesis of all Heresies" by Pope Pius X. While there are several aspects to Modernisn, at the root of it is the belief that Christian Dogma is not eternal, but changes with the times. Most major Protestant churches long ago succumbed to this - a well known example being the Anglican Church's decision in the 1930s to permit birth control and all the other innovations such as female ministers, gay marriage, support for abortion, etc etc.

The Catholic Church has never formally succumbed to Modernism, but the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s cracked the door open and the modernisers have been pushing hard against it ever since, causing a great deal of confusion and angst and causing millions of Catholics to abandon the faith. While the current Pope pays lip service to the unchanging nature of Christian Dogma, his close supporters are openly modernist and he has obliged them by loosening discipline or using such vague language that those who wish to can interpret dogma as having changed. He's done it on various issues, most notoriously in attempting to label adulterous second marriages as not being sinful despite Christ's hardass teachings on the matter.

Now this all seems very grim, but it's worth remembering that the Arian Heresy lasted into the late 7th Century - it was active for nearly four hundred years. Protestantism is nearly 500 years old and is only now entering its death throes. We're only 50 years in from Vatican II and while there's a great deal of rot in the Church as a result of Modernism, it is encountering pushback which I expect to grow as faithful Catholics are forced admit that the Church has gone off the rails and have no choice but to pick a side.

One perplexing and hopeful note in the current mess is that the current Pope seems to be on the verge of regularizing the Society of St Pius X, and doing so on their terms. Some might say it's better to have them inside pissing out than outside pissing in, but I expect that it result will be neither - they'll be inside the Church with all the credibility that brings to them, but still pissing inwards on the Modernists.

I had this Pope pegged as a wrong 'un the moment he stepped out onto the balcony in St. Peter's Square so nothing that's followed has surprised me. Despite all the doom saying floating around from some quarters he won't be the first unworthy occupant to sit in Peter's Chair, nor no doubt the last.

Post: #50

(05-12-2016 08:07 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  The church must be cucked from the inside. I wonder why there's no protest from other high ranking members of the Catholic Church from around the world. If an Orthodox patriarch tried pulling similar shit he'd be sacked within 24 hours.

The Wymyn Deacon issue won't blow up just yet, if ever. The current crisis is over the rigging of the Synod's of the family and the Pope's recent encyclical that has opened the door to regularizing adulterous second marriages and other heretical innovations. There hasn't been much in the way of criticism of it yet from senior prelates but I think it's because they have to digest 264 pages of meandering obtuse verbiage before responding. Also, Francis has a reputation for being a tyrant and I don't think it is beyond him to harshly punish those who stand up to his abuses.

I think, rather than outright criticism of the Pope, orthodox prelates will simply reiterate that the encyclical cannot and does not change Church teaching and then hope to ride out the remainder of this papacy.