Hey Zig Forums

I'm not even a Francis fan, but your arguments are mostly bogus.

Francis in the first video promotes dialogue between religions, not combining all religions together into a hybrid religion or religious indifference.

There is nothing wrong with being a Jesuits. Protestants just hate Jesuits because the Jesuits wrecked then back in the Counter-Reformation (e.g. St. Edmund Campion btfo the English so hard, they censored their transcript of his debate articulifidei.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-jesuit-challenge.html ). That's where all the Jesuit conspiracy paranoia comes from. The Jesuits are lousy on the whole today, but their are still good ones out there.

Francis doesn't say God doesn't condemn gays. He gives a non-answer saying that they should be treated with mercy, mercy of course meanint that they have need of mercy for something… Francis has more explicitly affirmed the Church's teachings against homosexuality elsewhere.

Francis does not deny God's omnipotence. His point in that quotation is that God does not just work as an immediate cause, but also through secondary causes. Although, if you believe Young-Earth Creationism is an essential doctrine of the faith, I'm afraid the pope probably is not a YEC.

Even though you are phrasing it in a strawmanny way, this is the Biblical apostolic teaching, summarized by the Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. You can't be a good Christian and deliberately separate yourself from the one, true, hierarchical Church.

OP, it would help focus discussion of you clarified what you meant about the Vatican? Are you concerned about corruption in the Vatican? Are you confused about the functions of the Vatican's various departments?

You're just giving me a basic interpretation, that doesn't correct what i posted. The video says "seeking God or meeting God in different ways", it's obvious that it's going against an objective God. If i were to pray to the Jewish Shekhina the male and female aspect of God, if i were worship a man called the buddah. if i pray to 'Allah', i would be 'seeking' the authentic God?

The Jesuits were started by Ignatius of Loyola who was mystic.

[ ] with love
[ ] condemn this person
His non-answer had two choices, and it's clear which he was implying and which he wasn't.

>>“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything.
If it's as you say, there is no reason for him to include God not being able to do everything.

You repeated the intention without acknowledging what he said.

The term ekklsia was used before the Christian era, before the greek translation of the bible it was qahal to mean an assembly, not a building. If i'm wrong can you show me where in the bible it refers to a building?
biblehub.com/hebrew/6951.htm
biblehub.com/text/acts/7-38.htm

Because i know Catholics more than any other Denom, i know you will become offended at this, if i am wrong than tell me so, I am trying to find the truth. that is why I'm writing these essays, to understand. I don't like pissing people off, but that's simply the nature of understanding, asking questions will piss people off, and Catholcis haven't changed in 20 years in that regard, you still get angry at questioning. But i still personally don't hate Catholics, i am trying to understand them.

nobody needs to throw dung on the RCC, basic truths can be hard to accept user

Is the (((modernist))) Vatican a form of neo-Modalism?

In a sense that one could argue that if there is only ONE God, but all those other religions (Jews, Eastern Orientals, Orthos, Islam, (((modernism))) etc) are just different modes of the literal same God. It would be the excuse for the comming of the Beast.

Attached: hands.jpg (1004x1301, 84.78K)

I forgot to mention, for an in depth look at the Jesuits watch Ex Jesuit Alberto Rivera and others Speak on Jesuit infiltration (video related). Don't just dismiss it just because they're used to cover up the jews.

Dude got it right. Additionally, they also manage Church finances, do more paperwork because the Vatican is also an official state, more liturgy in form of audiences and Catechesis and so on and so forth.
This thread is full of conspiracy theories and I'm not entirely sure why this is allowed to exist, because there are literally no sources and obviously the neo-pelagians and gnostics are at it again.
Friendly reminder that youtube videos and interviews of people claiming to be "ex-Jesuits" as "reliable sources" go into the trash without second thought.
The Catholic Church is the Truth, because it is the body of Christ which He Himself instated. If you're having a problem with that then so be it but don't try to slander where's nothing to slander.

lmao

Attached: You.jpg (1024x814, 256.71K)

Attached: 27255710-angry-priest-holding-a-bible-and-pointing-towards-the-camera-isolated-on-white-background.jpg (1300x866, 76.18K)

Also.

Attached: poison the well.png (644x1197, 124.81K)

How to kill your credibility in ten seconds, by user

He didn't even mention Peter.

Wrong video. He was an ex-Jesuit 'priest', this is the video one where he speaks out specifically about being an ex-Jesuit Priest. Also i automatically lose all credibility once i question that denom, because not everyone has the legalistic religious authority to question it.

How to kill your credibility in ten seconds, by user

According to the Cornerstone exposé,[1] Rivera had a 'history of legal entanglements' including fraud, credit card theft, and writing bad checks. Warrants had been issued for his arrest in New Jersey and Florida, and he was wanted by the Spanish police for 'swindles and cheats'. While in the U.S. in 1967, he claimed to be collecting money for a Spanish college, which never received this money. The details of his religious claims changed over time. For example, in 1964 he claimed that he had left the Catholic Church in July 1952. Rivera later put the date at March 20, 1967 - an almost 15 year discrepancy. Despite this second claim of conversion from Catholicism in March 1967, Rivera was still promoting Catholicism in a newspaper interview of August that same year. Although supposedly placed involuntarily in the sanatorium where he claimed to have nearly been murdered in 1965 and held there for three months, he gave the date of his release as September 1967. This leaves a period of more than a year unaccounted for in Rivera's narrative.

The document exhibited by Rivera to prove his status as a Catholic priest was fraudulent. The Catholic Church denies his claim of having been a Jesuit priest, or another claim that he was a bishop. He had only one sister in London. She was not a nun, and she did not live in a convent, so the claim that his sister the nun nearly died in a convent in London was problematic. In an employment form dated 1963, Rivera stated he was married to Carmen Lydia Torres, and the couple had two children in the U.S. In his narrative, Rivera claimed that he was a priest living in Spain in 1963.

Cornerstone also questioned Rivera's claim to various degrees, including three doctorates (Th.D., D.D., and Ph.D.), reporting that his known chronology did not allow enough time to have completed these degrees. Rivera allegedly admitted that he had received these degrees from a non accredited entity sometimes referred to as a diploma mill located in the state of Colorado.

Besides, he's a catholic, "muh st. Peter" is always implied. Not even getting into the fact that Rome incorporated than subverted a couple hundred years after Christianity was already a thing.

Attached: 1449055117154.png (411x611, 100.07K)

...

- Yes, someone can believe false propostions about God or how to seek him and still be meaningfully said to be seeking God. Peter Kreeft gives among the standard arguments for the existence for God, the "argument from Bach," which is basically if there is no God, how could the sublime music of Bach exist. That might sound stupid, especially if you're not a musician, but the point is that even something like music points to transcendent qualities, and moves people to conversion more often than you might expect. For people who practice false religions, it might not avail them of salvation, but it that doesn't mean that they are not seeking after God (even if they misunderstand God), and in some cases they may even come to genuine conversion.

Also, as an aside, Buddhists do not worship a man Buddha. If they view him as just a man, they do not worship him, and those who do worhip the Buddha (or multiple Buddhas) view the Buddha as a divine figure, not just a man.

- There's nothing wrong with "mysticism." Have you read anything that St. Ignatius of Loyola wrote?

- If you want to split hairs, what Francis implied in that sentence was that God loves the "existence" of that person, which is an objective good even for the most evil person, not their homosexual inclinations or any homosexual acts.
- You are reading too much into words that were likely either off the cuff or not prepared with much thought. Again, he didn't say that God was unable to do everything, he said that God was not a magician with a magic wand able to do everything. He does not say that God cannot do everything, but not as a magician with a magic wand. The intent is not to deny God's omnipotence, but to affirm God's use of secondary causes. And in this quotation, I suspect that the English translation is not a great representation of the original Italian.

Did I ever say that the Church is a building? The Church is a body of people, those who belong to Christ throughout the world, and can be outside or inside. However, the Church is a visible, not hidden, body and it is hierarchical with different roles and positions of authority.

If you want to understand Catholics, instead of parsing cryptic newspaper quotes from Pope Francis, you would be better off reading the writings of the saints.