How do you feel about their canonizations?

It would but it would mean you would no longer be a meme convert.
I agree. If one is preVII catholic you can hardly become orthodox in the "light of VII subversion"

Very, very uneasy.
Probably invalid due to subversion.

Yeah, all of them at the very least knowingly covered up for child rapists. The unconcern and lack of righteous indignation is completely demonic.

Modernists canonize themselves to give themselves more validity. We hope a future pope makes it clear that they never were…

The double effect principle, I suppose - which states that if fulfilling an obligation to do something would cause greater harm than the good done by fulfilling said obligation, then you may wait until better circumstances come, and only then fulfill this obligation. The obligation doesn't disappear - you still have it, but the evil circumstances in a way "block" you from doing it.

I suppose this is what happened, because if the abuse didn't leak out, apostasy, atheism and subsequent damnation of millions, or tens of millions (along with other effects, like the rapid spread of abortion and sexual sins due to apostasy), could be avoided. Do you think Ireland would have happened if not for the scandal?

As far as I know, declaration of sainthood is not infallible.

It was thought to be infallible before, but with the removal of the devil's advocate and only requiring one miracle, we can theorize that it isn't anymore. Why would they even try to change it? The process being less rigorous just puts doubt into our minds. Especially when they're canonizing extremely controversial figures, like Paul VI.

No, it was consider infallible because of the formula used to pronounce the declaration of canonization, which hasn't changed.

Liturgical abuse, new rite of ordination nullifying the sacraments, interreligious dialogue with antichrist religions of the world.

first in the revolution was doctrine and dogma. Second in the revolution from the top was morality as we now see with pope francis; divorced and remarried partaking of the eucharist, anyone?

Six years into this pontificate and I'm guessing another six are to come as pope francis is healthy and active.

Attached: 10b0ecec00b29849cd6958888bfcbbad202ca8865f01bf70f23303fd75e2316e.jpg (615x482, 62.35K)

Official Papal Canonizations are infallible. If you're truly uncomfortable with it, check yourself.

There's nothing controversial about Paul VI outside of complete libel from Jewish newspapers.

Get in the Ark before you drown.

Nothing controversial about the Novus Ordo? Are you serious? I assume you are some dumb boomer who has completely drunk the kool-aid.

And I assume you're a ani socail 25 year old man who can't seem to differentiate Theology with traditionalism. Doesn't feel nice to be called out huh? We Catholics are bound by duty towards tge Church which contains the Holy Spirit. If yoy reject this, you reject God himself. Don't get me wrong, I prefer a traditionalist Church. But don't call yourself a traditionalist while rejecting the traditional standpoint of obligation to the Lords Church.

You're changing the topic, we're talking about Paul VI. The man is a Pope-Saint, show some respect.

To follow up what you're saying, brother, to reject the last 3-4 Popes it more or less to admit you're not in the Catholic Church.

It doesn't matter how I feel, because canonisation is infallible.

This canonization has rules which actually has very little to do with what you did in life. That’s like asking if I am mad there are canonized saints who potentially never existed.

They're clearly political in nature. Before Vatican II, such people would have never been canonized. But, the Church is still the Church…

The Catholic church basically screwed themselves forever with the ridiculous notion of infallibility. The Pope and everyone below him are humans and that means they are capable of error.

Ftfy. If the Pope puts ketchup on everything he eats, that doesn't mean his eating habits become a doctrine and are therefore infallible.

papal infallibility has been used like how many times? 3, 4?

Yeah and I think one of the times was to confirm Papal Infallibility was indeed a thing.

Saint Pope John Paul II was top tier. Fit as a fiddle, survived assassination twice and one of the few men to bring down communism.

t. consequentialist

Consequentialism says that consequences alone determine whether an action is moral - no matter what you do, it's good if the consequences are good.

The double effect principle states that consequences among other things determine whether an action is moral - if you want to do something, you must take consequences into account, even if you must take another factors into account too. Consider, as an illustration, what Paul says: "Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to become a stumbling block by eating; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." Eating - an action not inherently evil and usually done out of a good motive which is keeping your body functioning - becomes evil when it causes your brother to sin; the evil that results from eating (your brother committing a sin) outweighs the good (your body getting some nutrition) that results from eating, and so in this case eating would be a sin.

Attached: 83cf99b3f3f2c0156cf57956d885cbe6.jpg (274x350, 35.18K)

It's not double effect as covering up a pedophile priest is intrinsically evil.

I feel hopeful in God's mercy for all mankind that in spite of everything negative that happened during their papacies that they made it to heaven, I hope we here will all go there some day.

If JPII is a Saint, then the Koran he kissed is a Third Class Relic. Now just think about that for a second.

lmao

For upwards of 700 years just two popes were declared saints, Pius V and Pius X. During the time the faith was spread all over the world.
The Vatican II church is well on the way to declaring every Vatican II pope a saint. During its 60 year existence they caused 80% of Catholics to apostatize from the faith and the rest they have fooled to go to a false religion, the counterfeit Bogus Ordo church.
"By their fruits you shall know them…"

Calm down, Vatican II has some problems, but in no way is it going bring down the Church. Those men are in the Lords kingdom, and no matter what you say they will still be there. And by the way, there are plenty of Popes who were blessed before the Council. Not exactly at the rank of Saints, but in Heaven nonetheless.

It's not going to because it already has.

Enjoy hell, buddy

Enjoy being judged by God as you judged others.

You condemed yourself by calling Christ a liar, im only telling you what will happen if you don't repent.

Not a Sede, but the Sede argument is that if you recognize Francis as a legitimate Pope, the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, and the Rock.

But the thing is you see, Hell itself cannot overrun Christ's Church. The Pope is valid, those Saints are praying for you in Heaven, and Rome will regain it's strength (would be hilarious if Francis somehow does it given his passive nature and the fact it would stun every Sede, but I have no clue).

I pray the Lord for the day this happens. By his grace and will it could be done if it is within his divine plan.

there's more than one pope?

You know their Saints because they make heretics salty

Wait, Novus Ordites don't say this at the end of every mass? Thank winnie the pooh I've never gone to a non-Latin Mass church, it sounds horrible.

Not all NO masses, just the ones in Liberal cities/counties. I live in a Blue state but live in a Red county and at the end of my NO masses we always pray the St. Michael prayer at the end of mass. Even when we got a new Monsignor, on his first day an old lady in the laity started the St. Michael prayer when the Monsignor didn't.

The NO mass isn't bad, just some people make it bad.

Doesn't the very fact that the NO allows corrupt/liberal priests to choose what to include in their masses indicate that it's bad…? Priests shouldn't get to dictate what happens in a mass.

Herp derp bishops though the modernist would probably try to elect their own Pope if that did happen.

They could literally do the same thing with the TLM.

They really can't. There's no room for priests to choose anything about the TLM. Meanwhile the Novus Ordo gives so much leeway that you get Catholic churches where the worship is indistinguishable from Baptist churches, or is even worse (at least Baptists never have half-naked women singing pop music or doing "liturgical dancing").

If a TLM priest REALLY wanted to they could, but no liberal priest ever conducts TLM mass so it would never happen. If Vat 2 never came to fruition than you can be sure that some liberal priests would find a way to bastardize the Latin Mass.

That was why they made the NO because they couldn’t figure out how to bastardize the TLM so they just threw out the TLM and created a New Rite and then shuffled out priests who refused to do the New Rite into areas where they had no influence and made weird rules like you had to beg your Modernist Bishop for permission to do TLM.

The TLM is incorruptible which is why they feared it so much. Same with the Rosary.

They’ve been trying for years to corrupt it but they never could so they instead had to downplay it and try and convince people to stop praying it.