Skip to main content

Ironic: [Francis is definitely the pope] Kennedy Hall @kennedyhall Popesplainers prey on the ignorance of Catholics (and I don't mean intentional or willful ignorance)...

Post

Conversation

Kennedy Hall
@kennedyhall
Popesplainers prey on the ignorance of Catholics (and I don't mean intentional or willful ignorance) For example, they will go after a trad by appealing to some canon from a council, but even councils have context and are directed toward certain realities. In addition, they perform leaps of logic that the average person can't grasp without study. Example, so and so says "that pachamama thing was bad," and the splainer replies "well, that is a heresy to say that because the first see is judged by no one!" See what happened there? No one "judged" the pope in any way that relates to a particular definition, but instead judged an action of the pope as being -- at least in the external -- clearly egregious. Ultimately, the splainers put the pope in a category of man who cannot be judged by reason, as it is an irrational and cultish mindset.
Last edited
4,451
Views

Kennedy Hall
@kennedyhall
This guy masquerades as a traditionalist but he’s just a popesplaining theological nitwit. What an obtuse and ignorant statement. He doesn’t even understand what the word undermine means.
Quote
Catholic Orca🇻🇦
@CatholicOrca
You can’t be catholic and hold to this position. A valid Pope cannot undermine the deposit of the faith
Image
22.3K
Views

Comments

Anonymous said…
All prelates were to recite a mea culpa. All this begins with the expulsion of Benedict XVI from the Chair of St. Peter. Bergoglio assumed the Petrine throne without Petrine munus. He took over alongside a still-living pope who abdicated only the ministry. But that wasn't a substantial mistake. This is where discernment comes in. If there can be no separation of the office from the Petrine ministry, then logic says that there has been a total impediment to the Petrine office against Ratzinger. This is the only way that one understands and makes sense of what Benedict XVI did, because the Code of Canon Law also speaks about this possibility. That is why Universo Dominici Gregis speaks of the necessity of the abdication of canon 332.2. This apostolic constitution is an antidote to usurpation. The legitimate cardinals must recognize the error and analyze it. One should not be taken for excuses and thus cling to the past. They must act today.

Renato
7:30 AM
Anonymous said…
I still don't understand how this is not fideism: the idea that we can only be certain somebody is an antipope if authority says so. I don't understand how such an idea is "traditional": traditional treatises on dogmatic theology do not support it. If they did St Bernard would not be a saint.

People like Father Kramer are in the minority and it just makes you ask if traditional Catholics even know the faith.
7:51 AM
Anonymous said…
The Apostolic Tradition comes from the testimony of the first apostles entrusted by Jesus Christ himself. Today this apostasy has led to another tradition in the Church that is not Christian. It is the same way as exchanging divine commandments for human precepts. Jesus fought Kabbalah, which means tradition. This mentality is Gnostic. It all comes from a pessimistic mentality that says matter is a bad thing. So the other gospel that is occult says that the papacy is evil and so is the divine institution. We must free ourselves from this by seeking a thesis, an antithesis until we arrive at a liberating synthesis. Christ revealed the Gospel through the logos, that is, in the logical way of understanding the truth. It is the opposite of those who seek the irrational path, even though they say they are Catholics. Today there are only two paths in these times. Either the way of good or evil.
8:52 AM
Post a Comment