I don't understand it. Why would God allow people who would practice incest and fornication to become pope...

Except the brits "won" by selling their soul to the devil i.e. allying with the Soviet and americans.

The point of that comment was to show that prevailing does not mean that things will be easy or will never come close to collapsing.

Both the Atheist regimes of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany fell and the US didn't impose any atheism on the British.

Nazi germany was not an atheist country it was a resurgent pagan nation.

Also, you miss the point, that brits were supposed to collapse, but they didn't because they literally sold their souls to the devil.

Because Our Lord said to St. Peter that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church, not that the Church will contain only the holiest of saints and that there will be no stain of sin in her.

This.

Attached: on the petrine office.png (1794x547, 183.77K)

...

winnie the pooh donatists spamming the board again.
Damn it.
St. Augustine we need you again.
user pls

Attached: counter to the papacy.png (1876x636, 122.73K)

Allow me to respond to pic related. which is annoying AF because I have to type it all out

So first, there's no actual response to the the whole Peter thing, so I don't understand why he even bothered.

This governance is not of men but of the Holy spirit working through men, as it has been since the foundation of the church. The way protestants address this is as though we view the power of men over the power of god, and that is not the case whatsoever.
Again absolution at confession is not by the power of a priest, nor by the power of a confessor. Formal confession and penance like all sacraments and works in the church is a physical manifestation of faith and devotion to God. God absolves your sins through confession to a priest, with the priest merely acting as a channel through which you might be given spiritual guidance and consolation via the Holy Spirit once again working through men.
With the previously stated view on the function of church leaders I feel like it's almost redundant to bother saying this, but again doctrinal judgments are consider to be under the guidance of the holy spirit. If you haven't figured it out yet, that's a pretty recurring theme in the church. We are the arms and limbs of the body of god, not the head. We obey what we feel we have been called to do and what has been handed down to us out of humility and obedience, not pride and contempt.
see the above two points.

"for they preach, but do not practice."

They why say it only to Peter and change only his name? All of 12 were there when Peter made his profession, yet even then he was singled out. And as the scripture continues, only he is charged to feed and shepherd the flock explicitly by Christ. It is true that we too should seek to follow such commands, but it is also clear that Peter was in a unique position among the Apostles, and scripture reaffirms this.
The seat of Peter is a role that extends over the entire Latin church hierarchy, with the Pope at the head of the seat of saint Peter. All priests are shepherds in their own right, not merely the pope. This is why each priest is still referred to as a pastor outside of there ranking. It's ironic to see this claim made when I've seen protestants claim the exact opposite, and state that because the seat of peter refers to the whole church, that is the reason the church hierarchy has no authority. The fact that the pope is a fellow shepherd is the exact reason why he is chosen from among his peers rather than via bloodline like a king or ruler. He is a servant of god and the church like any other priest.

And in light of all this, the following point is redundant, so let's continue
The pope has been corrected by his peers before… That changed nothing about church hierarchy though. If anything, it's an testament to the humanity of the church and the need to humbly surrender to guidance when you have gone astray. Again, all priests are shepherds.
ok
I submit to authority because it wasn't through a protestant lens that I first truly felt the awe, ecstasy, and humility brought by Christ to the human race. My person experience having been raised Catholic and going astray, only to come back to Christ seeking guidance from a variety of sources led me here, and my experience the day I truly converted is what has kept me. Having been raised initially catholic, I knew many of the claims by protestants to be either an errant understanding of the churches view as demonstrated in pic related or just a blatant lie. Whether these were done knowingly or unknowingly I won't pass judgement on, but between that and my interpretation of the scriptures being different from every protestant source I had seen *despite my lack of knowledge that personal biblical interpretation isn't considered valid in the church… and as such I thank the lord for showing me the way in my state of abandonment** No catholic has a gun to their back. We aren't submitting out of fear of men. The Vatican could be wiped off the face of the earth and it wouldn't change my perspective on scripture, works, the church, etc. If this posters complaint was that we don't use our own agency, he may be right in some cases, but for me he is seriously barking up the wrong tree.

The only argument you made is about the application of the charge to Peter, and it's not a good one. Scripture commonly records Jesus talking with one or a few with a lesson in application for everyone, see Nicodemus as one example.

I literally said it would be a good for all to follow it. That doesn't change the specificity with which he charged Peter. In the case of Nicodemus it was a man entreating Christ for and explanation. In the case of Peter is was Christ singling the man out and charging him explicitly with a task. Peter was also the first to follow Christ, and the first to preach after Pentecost. He is a model for us all, as are all the apostles, but he has been of obvious and particular importance in the church from its very foundation.

I can't make much of an argument for most of what that user said, because as is par for the course 90% of it is born of misunderstanding the view of the church. Hence I just sat here and explained things.

Frankly, if God is too much of a coward to step up and take responsibility for his actions and his followers are more than happy to enable his reckless behaviour under the common argument "muh free will exonerates God", why should I, or anyone, even bother following the impotent retard?

I see now why the kikes laugh at Christianity. It's a joke religion predicated entirely behind 'Heaven on a Stick,' don't mess up or you're going to suffer for eternity! This farce is unnecessary.

I spit on god.

Really just think about it. If your son murdered his brother then of course he should be punished. But wouldn't you contemplate your failures as a father?

God isn't infallible, so why would I follow him?