/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I hope this follows with a scathing condemnation of the USA.

Even better if he formally excommunicates the "Catholic" members of SCOTUS/Congress that are in favor of sodomites.

It's Jewish dialectic, don't get your hopes up on this anti-Catholic heretic imposter nonpope Francis:

>dialectic

>thesis-antithesis-synthesis

>thesis: pretends to be conservative

>antithesis: speaks something liberal

>synthesis: new redefinition of "conservative"

>>3037

The Church already condemns sodomy.

>>3043

Francis is not liberal. The media wants to make him liberal while he is in fact their puppeteer. Anti-catholic media resentment has gone back, this is vital to enable the Church to recover.

still miss Benedict ;_;

>>3043

>It's Jewish dialectic,

>It's Jews

Of course it is. It always is. Every single time.

>>3048

>The media wants to make him liberal while he is in fact their puppeteer.

I really hope that you are right anon. I really do. Excommunicating people who publicly advocate for such things and try and spread this degeneracy would be a positive thing though, and it would go a long way in reminding the world that the Catholic Church is indeed against sodomy.

>>3052

> Excommunicating people who publicly advocate for such things and try and spread this degeneracy would be a positive thing

In fact there are deeds that automatically excommunicate you, regardless if a pope cared or knew.

>>3056

So you mean these people may possibly be excommunicated already, even though they may still be in good standing with the catholic church and experience none of the social repercussions of being excommunicated? Assuming that they have done these deeds that you mentioned, that is.

>>3073

This is not mormonism, we are no conartists.

The consequence of being excommunicated is not mainly "social repercussions" but heavenly.

Essentially it makes you a heretic, so you'll face their fate.

Excommunication is very serious and not to be taken lightly.

>>3075

The negative comments are unnecessary and contribute nothing. If you care to discuss the reality of Mormon practice, we can do that.

I say this because, historically, there was a time when the Pope would indeed excommunicate people over even lesser offences than this. And so my question is, what has changed? Where the popes of old wrong to excommunicate people like they did, or is this new sort of "live and let live" very secular approach of the Papacy the correct one?

I say that because your original comment seemed to indicate that there are things a man could do that would "excommunicate" him, whether the pope was aware of it or no. But here we have people, claiming to be catholic, who openly and unabashedly advocate for things the church has been clearly opposed to.

And this is not considered grounds for excommunication. Or if it is, the Pope has chosen to not do anything about it, even if they might be "excommunicated" in the Eyes of God. Why?

>>3036

Sometimes I think that maybe he just wants to troll as many people as possible. Who knows?

>>3080

>The negative comments are unnecessary and contribute nothing. If you care to discuss the reality of Mormon practice, we can do that.

You are allowed to post here, but you are not protected from criticism. You will have to deal with it that on a Christian board Christians will let you know how unchristian you are.

This is necessary because otherwise people could get the idea that being a mormon was okay.

> Where the popes of old wrong to excommunicate people like they did, or is this new sort of "live and let live" very secular approach of the Papacy the correct one?

All popes have the power to do this or to not do this. Each and every one of them will have to face a judgement over this, I do not envy them.

This has to suffice, we don't know who is "right" or if not both are right.

>I say that because your original comment seemed to indicate that there are things a man could do that would "excommunicate" him, whether the pope was aware of it or no.

This is the case, there are different types of excommunication.

Excommunicatio latae sententiae is the one I meant.

It occurs after the deed that you commit and does not need papal verification.

One of them is for example heresy. Another would be abortion. If we consider same sex marriage as a heresy the case is quite clear, but wanting to allow it does not mean to also promote it or think that it would be good…

Also we should blame the local bishops more than the pope.

Why did the bishop of Ireland not take action? Order priests to actually inform people about the dogma?

He will have to make his case too, shepherd that are too cowardly to protect their sheep, I don't even want to think about their sentence.

>>3083

>This is necessary because otherwise people could get the idea that being a mormon was okay.

You may do this as you like. The effectiveness of this approach will remain to be seen.

> Each and every one of them will have to face a judgement over this, I do not envy them.

I see, so these decisions are entirely up to them and how they interpret scripture and the events of the world, after which they are judged by God on their performance. That is interesting.

> If we consider same sex marriage as a heresy the case is quite clear, but wanting to allow it does not mean to also promote it or think that it would be good…

You appear to be very familiar with Scripture and Canon Law. In your personal opinion, do you think that the actions of Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy are worthy of Excommunication?

> Order priests to actually inform people about the dogma?

I'm assuming many a priest tried to do the correct thing, but the push from the Irish Government, the secularist agenda, the populous, the E.U. and International Jewry was too strong.

I'm certain some priests, however, did preach "tolerance" and "acceptance", and will, like you said, be held accountable for their deeds.

>>3087

> In your personal opinion, do you think that the actions of Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy are worthy of Excommunication?

I am not exactly aware of what they did. So they like forced all the states to legalize same sex marriage? Do they also call it marriage or partnership or something?

In fact I do not think that it bears much theological importance as long as they do not force Churches to accept these or even perform them.

The institution of civil marriage is rather young and was implemented by the masonic French Revolutionaries. It became common in Europe not before 1848 and was opposed by the Church until WWI. So it is no sacrament or something.

I think it depends on details. Are they even Catholic? If not it does not matter anyway.

If so they would have needed to know that the Church views same sex whatever as a crime. So if they would "ordain" one of these marriages, yes this is worthy of excommunication.

If they just make it legally possible it is more tricky. One could argue that God gave us also the freedom to oppose him and I wouldn't know how to counter that.

>I'm assuming many a priest tried to do the correct thing, but the push from the Irish Government, the secularist agenda, the populous, the E.U. and International Jewry was too strong.

It has come far. In the past people were ready to become martyrs for faith, now they won't even oppose the mainstream publicly anymore ;_;

already wantedto answer yesterday but 8ch went off

>>3099

>So they like forced all the states to legalize same sex marriage?

Yes, essentially. They made it illegal for a state to have a ban on marriage of any kind, inadvertently legalizing incest as well. It will be called "marriage" like any other.

> as long as they do not force Churches to accept these or even perform them.

In recent days' there's been a lot of that fear going around because the government has been forcing Christians who own secular business like bakeries and photo studios to service gay weddings specifically, and when Christians politely declined they Jews have skewered them and made them out to be villains, and used the government to steal their wealth or close down their businesses.

>Are they even Catholic?

2 of them. Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy are Catholic. Justices Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg are (wait for it) kikes.

>If so they would have needed to know that the Church views same sex whatever as a crime.

I don't believe it would be possible for them, in this day and age, to not be aware of the Church's position on that, they simply chose to ignore it. They do have the legal authority ti perform marriages, but I don't know if they've done it recently. I would argue that being, personally, the reason why other people can do this evil deed is just as bad if not worse.

>now they won't even oppose the mainstream publicly anymore ;_;

I honestly believe we need real persecution before all the fake believers drop off, openly reject Jesus and anyone who considers himself true will simply go underground and start sending "presents" to people and stuff like that.

>>3112

>I honestly believe we need real persecution before all the fake believers drop off, openly reject Jesus and anyone who considers himself true will simply go underground and start sending "presents" to people and stuff like that.

Have we ever won a war with terrorism? An actual civil war is one thing and can be necessary, even partisans and cunning moves but I would not engage in assasination and bomb attacks.

Endurance will pay off. We can't lose this fight.

> Justices Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg are (wait for it)

Somuch diversity it is beautiful.

>>3112

>Yes, essentially. They made it illegal for a state to have a ban on marriage of any kind, inadvertently legalizing incest as well. It will be called "marriage" like any other.

T least this is consequent. Can I marry my horse now?

>>3114

>Have we ever won a war with terrorism?

Hmm… That's how America started, and I think we had a decent run before it started going to hell, but I see your point. We'll see how this whole thing will play out.

>Somuch diversity it is beautiful.

Jews make up 2% of the population and they have three justices. Hispanics make up 17% of the population and have one Justice. What a time to be alive.

>T least this is consequent. Can I marry my horse now?

I think the horse is still legally property, but they've definitely set the stage for any and all the of these degenerate behaviors to be legally sanctioned.