# Pope Francis Accused of Heresy By Members of the Catholic Church



## BenjaminW (May 1, 2019)

I came across a post over on r/The_Donald over on Reddit that stated that in an open letter to bishops in the Catholic Church written by clergy members and Catholic scholars, that accuses Pope Francis of heresy. 

According to the Reddit post's OP, the authors of the letter base their accusation of heresy on the Pope's "embrace of positions contrary to the faith and his dubious support of prelates who in their lives have shown themselves to have a clear disrespect for the Church's faith and morals". 

I know everybody on here isn't Catholic, but I figured that since this a pretty shocking accusation to come out of the Church itself, it would make some good discussion here. 

Here are the links to the letter and the original Reddit post:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ening_catholic_leaders_accuse_pope_of_heresy/


----------



## Leviathus (May 1, 2019)

HeerrruhhsAAAAaAaAAyYyY!!! 

/endpantera


----------



## narad (May 1, 2019)

How is it coming out of the church itself it is an open letter TO the bishops?


----------



## NotDonVito (May 1, 2019)

I mean Catholic priests, bishops, ect.. CONSTANTLY talk shit about each other like you have no idea. It's a hierarchical business where everybody thinks they can do a better job than the next guy. I know guys who want old bishops to step down just because they don't like the city/church they have been "called to serve by god".


----------



## BenjaminW (May 1, 2019)

narad said:


> How is it coming out of the church itself it is an open letter TO the bishops?


Some of the authors in are priests and deacons.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2019)

Some context: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1S73KE

So 19 very conservative Catholics are angry because the Pope isn't condemning gay and divorced Catholics as much as they'd like, and isn't starting another Crusade.

How original.


----------



## diagrammatiks (May 1, 2019)

Pretty much on par for the church. Not like there’s a big boss actually telling them what to do.


----------



## Drew (May 1, 2019)

I would take ANYTHING from r/TheDonald with a giant grain of salt. But, it's not like Francis is the first pope to do something controversial.


----------



## StevenC (May 1, 2019)

Of all the reasons to start a thread about the Pope...


----------



## BenjaminW (May 1, 2019)

Drew said:


> I would take ANYTHING from r/TheDonald with a giant grain of salt.


Lemme get some stuff from 4chan. Then we're talking!


----------



## MetalHex (May 1, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> Pretty much on par for the church. Not like there’s a big boss actually telling them what to do.





diagrammatiks said:


> Pretty much on par for the church. Not like there’s a big boss actually telling them what to do.


How are you so sure about that last sentence?


----------



## diagrammatiks (May 1, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> How are you so sure about that last sentence?



200 percent sure.


----------



## MetalHex (May 1, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> 200 percent sure.


Are you referring to a God or other people I should have asked?


----------



## BenjaminW (May 2, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So 19 very conservative Catholics are angry because the Pope isn't condemning gay and divorced Catholics as much as they'd like, and isn't starting another Crusade.
> 
> How original.


I personally consider myself to be conservative and Catholic, but I've always had issues with very conservative Catholics like you mention here because I can't tell if they're trying to either start the second Inquisition or turn the church back into what it was in the Middle Ages (which is the same as trying to start crusades again).


----------



## c7spheres (May 2, 2019)

So what do they want? For him to step down? (see what I did there) Seriously, I'm just to lazy to read a 20 pg letter about this. All humans are imperfect, Let's turn the position over to some AI type robot, like everything else.(just kidding)


----------



## narad (May 2, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> So what do they want? For him to step down? (see what I did there) Seriously, I'm just to lazy to read a 20 pg letter about this. All humans are imperfect, Let's turn the position over to some AI type robot, like everything else.(just kidding)



I like the Robo-pope idea.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 2, 2019)

BenjaminW said:


> I personally consider myself to be conservative and Catholic, but I've always had issues with very conservative Catholics like you mention here because I can't tell if they're trying to either start the second Inquisition or turn the church back into what it was in the Middle Ages (which is the same as trying to start crusades again).



The super "conservative" Catholics we're dealing with here use the Church as a means to power and fulfillment of their own social shortcomings. 

They want to roll things back to the Dark Ages, they want another Crusade. Why? Because that's when their club had the most power.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 2, 2019)

narad said:


> I like the Robo-pope idea.



All hail Robo-Pope!


----------



## c7spheres (May 2, 2019)

narad said:


> I like the Robo-pope idea.



 I gotta learn to not drink and read at the same time. I almost died inhaling water from laughing so hard. Long live Robo-Pope!


----------



## narad (May 2, 2019)




----------



## chopeth (May 2, 2019)

You be happy the church doesn't have power to influence the politics in your country. In mine it is one of the biggest powers, they supported a dictator, helped spread the oppression after the civil war, denouncing people to the dictatorship, and now the put down presidents with demonstrations, always near the power (a.k.a right winged liberal parties), spending public money (11.000.000 million year they got from my fellow citicens) not in the poor or those in need, but into courses to convince gays they are ill. 

Catholicism is a plague, a spirit illness wherever it dwells, no matter how good it does, the evil surpasses it like a million times. Moral misery and darkness is what the high leaders bring for the people. The new pope is just a more moderate type of the same sickness.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 2, 2019)

chopeth said:


> You be happy the church doesn't have power to influence the politics in your country.



OP is from the United States. So we're screwed.


----------



## mpexus (May 2, 2019)

The Catholic Church has always been hands to hands with Power. Look at any Dictatorship in any Christian/Catholic country in History and see the Highest Priest always be nice friends with the Dictators. Religion still has huge amounts of power, in fact it's the only reason it still exists, to control the Masses.


----------



## MetalHex (May 2, 2019)

That's because the White Pope, (the ones we know) and all of his kin that we see in the media, that reside in Vatican city are put in front of us as figureheads. Behind and above the white pope sits the black pope (leader of the Jesuits). These are tenticles of a the solar church. It really is a solar cult. It is a death cult really.


----------



## Drew (May 2, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> That's because the White Pope, (the ones we know) and all of his kin that we see in the media, that reside in Vatican city are put in front of us as figureheads. Behind and above the white pope sits the black pope (leader of the Jesuits). These are tenticles of a the solar church. It really is a solar cult. It is a death cult really.


...the _fuck_ are you going on about?? 



BenjaminW said:


> Lemme get some stuff from 4chan. Then we're talking!


Eh those guys are a bunch of anarchists, that's a step or two up from white nationalism maybe but I would take them with a couple kilos of salt, too.


----------



## c7spheres (May 2, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> That's because the White Pope, (the ones we know) and all of his kin that we see in the media, that reside in Vatican city are put in front of us as figureheads. Behind and above the white pope sits the black pope (leader of the Jesuits). These are tenticles of a the solar church. It really is a solar cult. It is a death cult really.


 It's more of that conspiracy stuff science can't prove that we all know to be true. Like Aliens, 432hz and Tone Wood. Yeah, I said it and I'll say it again, Tone Wood! How's that feel? Just trying to keep the mood light cause I know these issues can get negative real quick. Seriously MetalHEx, You just opened a can of worms. I know what you're talking about is true, but I ain't getting into it. This thread could go on for years now : )


----------



## MetalHex (May 2, 2019)

Drew said:


> ...the _fuck_ are you going on about??



I really can't simplify it anymore than I did. Someone has to do their homework!


----------



## MetalHex (May 2, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> It's more of that conspiracy stuff science can't prove that we all know to be true. Like Aliens, 432hz and Tone Wood. Yeah, I said it and I'll say it again, Tone Wood! How's that feel? Just trying to keep the mood light cause I know these issues can get negative real quick. Seriously MetalHEx, You just opened a can of worms. I know what you're talking about is true, but I ain't getting into it. This thread could go on for years now : )


Unlike the 432hz thing though which is more difficult to prove, there is plenty of evidence to back this up that you can actually touch and see. One just has to follow to symbolism and etymology, and just read some books.....or use google at least


----------



## spudmunkey (May 2, 2019)

"Black Pope" sounds like a movie what would have a "Wackka-Joe-Wackka-Joe" soundtrack, with a cast that would include at least 2 people with the last name, "Washington".

Growing up catholic, I've heard and read about the Jesuits, but everything I've come across points to them not being somehow above/behind everything, but being underlings/2nd class. Especially lately (last few decades).


----------



## MetalHex (May 2, 2019)

spudmunkey said:


> "Black Pope" sounds like a movie what would have a "Wackka-Joe-Wackka-Joe" soundtrack, with a cast that would include at least 2 people with the last name, "Washington".
> 
> Growing up catholic, I've heard and read about the Jesuits, but everything I've come across points to them not being somehow above/behind everything, but being underlings/2nd class. Especially lately (last few decades).


Interesting. Well I didnt say the Jesuits are "behind everything", but I do believe they are instrumental in fomenting wars....being that they are basically the "militant" branch of the catholic order.


----------



## chopeth (May 3, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> OP is from the United States. So we're screwed.



I stand for what I said, you probably don't even know what is to be under the rule of the church in the states. It is ridiculous. A couple of years ago, a politician rewarded the virgin mary with a medal of police honor. Just to give you an example... last 7 years the heirs of dictator Franco long gone have been in the government. These conservative rich bullfighting lovers and haters of culture and progress always regale the church with huge privileges, as the church helped put down the earlier government going to demonstrations against them because they have passed laws like homosexual marriage or social measures to help the poor. Incredible, right?

Well, one of the privileges is that the church (sorry, I can't write it with capitals) can be an national registrator of property. I don't know if I translated it right. They can claim whatever they want is propierty of the church. As an example, they made the Mosque of Cordoba theirs. It's one of the most important muslim buildings in Spain, build in year 700. They paid the symbolic and ridiculous amount of 30€ for it (a ticket to get in is half that price) and changed their name for Cathedral as they hate everything that smells not catholic, obviously.

We don't even know the number of temples, cathedrals, towers, and buildings of any type propierty of all the Spanish who have been stole by the church, and the legal process is so complicated we might never recover those. Just as an example of how relevant the dirty hands of the church are in some contries politics compared to others. A pity, I know.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 3, 2019)

chopeth said:


> I stand for what I said, you probably don't even know what is to be under the rule of the church in the states. It is ridiculous. A couple of years ago, a politician rewarded the virgin mary with a medal of police honor. Just to give you an example... last 7 years the heirs of dictator Franco long gone have been in the government. These conservative rich bullfighting lovers and haters of culture and progress always regale the church with huge privileges, as the church helped put down the earlier government going to demonstrations against them because they have passed laws like homosexual marriage or social measures to help the poor. Incredible, right?
> 
> Well, one of the privileges is that the church (sorry, I can't write it with capitals) can be an national registrator of property. I don't know if I translated it right. They can claim whatever they want is propierty of the church. As an example, they made the Mosque of Cordoba theirs. It's one of the most important muslim buildings in Spain, build in year 700. They paid the symbolic and ridiculous amount of 30€ for it (a ticket to get in is half that price) and changed their name for Cathedral as they hate everything that smells not catholic, obviously.
> 
> We don't even know the number of temples, cathedrals, towers, and buildings of any type propierty of all the Spanish who have been stole by the church, and the legal process is so complicated we might never recover those. Just as an example of how relevant the dirty hands of the church are in some contries politics compared to others. A pity, I know.



Two things:

1) I was agreeing with your point. Religion has no place in government.

2) The United States has many of the problems you mention in your country.

We're all getting fucked.


----------



## Edika (May 3, 2019)

narad said:


>



HERESY! Usurping the place of the one true Space Pope!!!


----------



## StevenC (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Interesting. Well I didnt say the Jesuits are "behind everything", but I do believe they are instrumental in fomenting wars....being that they are basically the "militant" branch of the catholic order.


...the fuck are you on about?


----------



## Drew (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I really can't simplify it anymore than I did. Someone has to do their homework!





MetalHex said:


> Unlike the 432hz thing though which is more difficult to prove, there is plenty of evidence to back this up that you can actually touch and see. One just has to follow to symbolism and etymology, and just read some books.....or use google at least


Wait, you're actually serious, and you weren't just making some weird and not terribly funny joke?


----------



## chopeth (May 3, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) I was agreeing with your point. Religion has no place in government.
> 
> ...



I knew you didn't disagree, I just think there are different degrees and I think my underdeveloped country sadly wins by far.

Is there a clear and public demand from the church to vote for a specific party in your country?


----------



## diagrammatiks (May 3, 2019)

chopeth said:


> I knew you didn't disagree, I just think there are different degrees and I think my underdeveloped country sadly wins by far.
> 
> Is there a clear and public demand from the church to vote for a specific party in your country?



I mean kind of.


----------



## spudmunkey (May 3, 2019)

chopeth said:


> I knew you didn't disagree, I just think there are different degrees and I think my underdeveloped country sadly wins by far.
> 
> Is there a clear and public demand from the church to vote for a specific party in your country?



Yes. Definitely. Well...sort of.

They are forbidden by tax law to officially endorse candidates, but they *wink wink* definitely do. "Vote for biblical principles" is a way to talk about specific topics, and hint towards a particular candidate or party.

Where I grew up as a kid, my local polling place was IN a church! Ha! Super weird...

https://www.uspastorcouncil.org/church-resources/mobilizing-church-voters.html



> *Four. *At an appropriate time during the worship service, the Senior Pastor should discuss the importance of voting responsibly. He could then ask each person who is an eligible voter to be willing to make a commitment to vote, and “Stand for Righteousness” by voting in each election according to Biblical principles.


----------



## MetalHex (May 3, 2019)

Drew said:


> ...the _fuck_ are you going on about??





StevenC said:


> ...the fuck are you on about?



Wow its echoey in here!


----------



## Fred the Shred (May 3, 2019)

Well, Catholic "tradition and morals" also states the infallible nature of the Pope. As such, he can't commit heresy at all. Ah, to be bitten in the proverbial arse by your own dogmas...

He promotes acceptance, which is well documented in the gospels. As if these guys are interested in matters of faith as opposed to protecting the lobbies they feel may be threatened by this pope.


----------



## Xaios (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Wow its echoey in here!


...the fuck you on about?the fuck you on about?fuck you on about?


----------



## StevenC (May 3, 2019)

Fred the Shred said:


> Well, Catholic "tradition and morals" also states the infallible nature of the Pope. As such, he can't commit heresy at all. Ah, to be bitten in the proverbial arse by your own dogmas...
> 
> He promotes acceptance, which is well documented in the gospels. As if these guys are interested in matters of faith as opposed to protecting the lobbies they feel may be threatened by this pope.


Except the Pope has to invoke infallibility. He can't just say whatever he wants and not be wrong, because that's ridiculous. It only works when he's explicitly defining church doctrine.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Interesting. Well I didnt say the Jesuits are "behind everything", but I do believe they are instrumental in fomenting wars....being that they are basically the "militant" branch of the catholic order.


the jesuits haven't been the actual militant part of the church since like the late 1700s. Most of what they did was missionary/military work in the new world.


----------



## Drew (May 3, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> the jesuits haven't been the actual militant part of the church since like the late 1700s. Most of what they did was missionary/military work in the new world.


Shh. If he read it in a Dan Brown novel, it MUST be true!


----------



## MetalHex (May 3, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> the jesuits haven't been the actual militant part of the church since like the late 1700s. Most of what they did was missionary/military work in the new world.


OR they just went more under the radar which is more probable. Not sure where you got that info from but I am not sure that it is true.


----------



## Drew (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> OR they just went more under the radar which is more probable. Not sure where you got that info from but I am not sure that it is true.


What makes that "more probable"?


----------



## MetalHex (May 3, 2019)

Drew said:


> ...the _fuck_ are you going on about??





Drew said:


> Wait, you're actually serious, and you weren't just making some weird and not terribly funny joke?





Drew said:


> Shh. If he read it in a Dan Brown novel, it MUST be true!





Drew said:


> What makes that "more probable"?



I honestly have no intention on answering your questions, because you have already made up your mind. I dont think you genuinely want to know and are not in it to have a serious discussion, you have already dismissed everything I have said as "some weird and not terribly funny joke".

It looks like you are the one making the not so funny jokes, and now you want a serious response from me?

I will wait for KnightBrolaire to respond.


----------



## BenjaminW (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Interesting. Well I didnt say the Jesuits are "behind everything", but I do believe they are instrumental in fomenting wars....being that they are basically the "militant" branch of the catholic order.


Would you be able to explain this more since I'm curious as to what makes Jesuits a militant branch of the Church?


----------



## Drew (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I honestly have no intention on answering your questions, because you have already made up your mind. I dont think you genuinely want to know and are not in it to have a serious discussion, you have already dismissed everything I have said as "some weird and not terribly funny joke".
> 
> It looks like you are the one making the not so funny jokes, and now you want a serious response from me?
> 
> I will wait for KnightBrolaire to respond.


You're spouting straight-up conspiracy theories. Am I supposed to pretend to take you seriously?


----------



## spudmunkey (May 3, 2019)

Drew said:


> You're spouting straight-up conspiracy theories. Am I supposed to pretend to take you seriously?



In b4 "do your research".


----------



## cwhitey2 (May 3, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Except the Pope has to invoke infallibility. He can't just say whatever he wants and not be wrong, because that's ridiculous. It only works when he's explicitly defining church doctrine.


...well Trump says whatever he wants...and according to him he's an expert on everything.

#politicalpost


----------



## Xaios (May 3, 2019)

I thought everyone knew the black pope ran the Catholic church. Just look at the guy:


----------



## MetalHex (May 3, 2019)

"You're spouting straight-up conspiracy theories. Am I supposed to pretend to take you seriously? "

Thread Topic - "Pope Francis Accused of Heresy By Members of the Catholic Church"

Drew forget what kind of thread he was in . Oh and yes, as Spudmonkey said, do your research.

@BenjaminW when i'm off of work and I can go home and flip through my books I can give you an answer


----------



## narad (May 3, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I honestly have no intention on answering your questions, because you have already made up your mind.



So the argument for this idea is so tenuous that people need to approach it with an open mind? That's the nice thing about good arguments: they reach reasonable conclusions whether you want to believe in them or not. Otherwise you're right in there with the psychic spoon-benders and paranormal investigators, whose arguments conveniently require people who believe things without verifiable proof.



Xaios said:


> ...the fuck you on about?the fuck you on about?fuck you on about?



Sounds like we're in a cave filled with all the evidence of an active Jesuit conspiracy.


----------



## c7spheres (May 3, 2019)

Xaios said:


> I thought everyone knew the black pope ran the Catholic church. Just look at the guy:



Those crosses are not upside down, If you look at them from the most important point of view; God's up in heaven : ) It's everyone else wearing the upside down crosses.


----------



## narad (May 3, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> Those crosses are not upside down, If you look at them from the most important point of view; God's up in heaven : ) It's everyone else wearing the upside down crosses.



Ah, but I believe God is within all of us, so actually it's right-side up, just secretly backwards.


----------



## MetalHex (May 3, 2019)

narad said:


> So the argument for this idea is so tenuous that people need to approach it with an open mind? That's the nice thing about good arguments: they reach reasonable conclusions whether you want to believe in them or not. Otherwise you're right in there with the psychic spoon-benders and paranormal investigators, whose arguments conveniently require people who believe things without verifiable proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we're in a cave filled with all the evidence of an active Jesuit conspiracy.


No. It is not a matter of opinion. Go head over to the Vatican, knock on the door, and ask if they have an allegiance to higher orders, and if they've ever started wars, and see what happens. You will most likely be drawn and quartered.These things I am talking about are fact....



If he doesn't want to open his enough to search for them, that is up to him. Otherwise his belief is "his own truth".....but just, wrong. But I'm sure he appreciates you chiming in for him.

One of these days you guys will look up stuff on your own instead of having the "provide links or its bullshit" sentiment.


----------



## MFB (May 3, 2019)

...so you think the Vatican doorman will just up and draw and quarter you for, asking a question?

Yeesh!


----------



## narad (May 3, 2019)

MFB said:


> ...so you think the Vatican doorman will just up and draw and quarter you for, asking a question?
> 
> Yeesh!



And that counts as "fact", like there's an example of that? Or like a Reading Rainbow gif really solidifies it?



MetalHex said:


> One of these days you guys will look up stuff on your own instead of having the "provide links or its bullshit" sentiment.



Dude, it's not sentiment. There's a reason. If I search, I get a bunch of bullshit cringe sites that don't do anything to support your idea with evidence. Only support through more random people on the internet talking about their own crazy conspiracies of "what could". If you want to make the case, post the references you think are reliable sources and let's see.

lol like this works in a court, scientific conference, debate, i.e., any scenario in which one party tries to convince another that an idea is the truth.


----------



## c7spheres (May 3, 2019)

narad said:


> Ah, but I believe God is within all of us, so actually it's right-side up, just secretly backwards.


Yep, Still right side up if you look down then: )


----------



## c7spheres (May 3, 2019)

narad said:


> And that counts as "fact", like there's an example of that? Or like a Reading Rainbow gif really solidifies it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think no matter what the subject, if it's a debated thing, then you'll find all kinds of stuff for both sides of any argument. With all the info out there all you can do is read one millionth of it and try to deduce an informed opinion, an educated guess, I also think that I've read so much on this subject, heard so many other people talk about it, and have had my own personal experience with other (not Catholic) organizations, that long ago my entire ability to belong to any religion, or cult, has long since passed. My own journey of reading and researching consumed my life for years and it always lead me to the same conclusion; some people know some things, nobody knows everything, but ultimately, nobody knows nothing. Unless your directly involved or experienced in anything, you don't know anything, but it isn't hard to see the forest from the trees, as the saying goes. The longer I live the more jaded I get by all this because it's just old news repeating itself. It's a big distraction. Humans are human and do human things. Nothing is surprising. But yes, the Reading Rainbow gif, has been a highlight of my day. Take a look! it's in a book! Reading Rainbow! Reading Rainbow! I love you guys.


----------



## MetalHex (May 3, 2019)

narad said:


> And that counts as "fact", like there's an example of that? Or like a Reading Rainbow gif really solidifies it?
> 
> 
> Dude, it's not sentiment. There's a reason. If I search, I get a bunch of bullshit cringe sites that don't do anything to support your idea with evidence. Only support through more random people on the internet talking about their own crazy conspiracies of "what could". If you want to make the case, post the references you think are reliable sources and let's see.
> ...


The knocking on the door thing was not what I was referring to as being a fact. The fact that they start wars, is.

"If I search, I get a bunch of bullshit cringe sites". Yeah you're not going to find that info on an official "vatican.com" so-to-speak... But it may lead you to such things as books written by actual ex-priests who were once in that order. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004Y1MQG2/?tag=sevenstringorg-20 heres one for starters. I mean perhaps if you dive into this subject for a little while, then come out with your conclusion that you dont agree then thats fine we dont agree. We can shake hands and walk away. But to dismiss it right off the bat....

Again, the corruption within the Catholic church is no secret, so I dont know how any of this I'm saying is far fetched and dismissed as tin foil hat material.

News headline reads something like, "Catholic church child trafficking/pedophile/abuse......etc." You; "Yeah they're all guilty hypocrites are corrupt to the core and are going to burn in hell!" Me: "they are also instrumental in starting wars and are a show piece for those that operate behind them"........You: "WHAT? YOU LOONEY CONSPIRACY THEORIST"!


----------



## c7spheres (May 3, 2019)

I am a member of The Sacred Order of the Tin foil Hats, but that's a secret, please don't tell anybody. Tinfoil hats do keep bad frequencies out, such as 440hz.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (May 4, 2019)

lmao he's fucking citing a conspiracy theory book, just read the amazon reviews for it


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> lmao he's fucking citing a conspiracy theory book, just read the amazon reviews for it


What does that even mean? Yeah it's a book about those who are conspiring........aaaand?? Did you read the book? Nah I got everything from the Amazon reviews

The problem is is you see the word conspiracy theory and automatically think "OoOoOoOoOoOoOo aliens and ufo's whackjob nutcase!


----------



## KnightBrolaire (May 4, 2019)

Multiple reviews mention how the book is published by an unreliable publisher, and the book was originally written a quasi-historian who extrapolated far beyond what the evidence allowed. So yeah, not exactly scholarly material here. 
next you're going to tell me that Royal Rife was correct and that cancer can be destroyed via harmonic resonance


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Multiple reviews mention how the book is published by an unreliable publisher, and the book was originally written a quasi-historian who extrapolated far beyond what the evidence allowed. So yeah, not exactly scholarly material here.
> next you're going to tell me that Royal Rife was correct and that cancer can be destroyed via harmonic resonance


Ah, but you believe those people without a shadow of a doubt. Can you have them cite their sources for that?


----------



## c7spheres (May 4, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> lmao he's fucking citing a conspiracy theory book, just read the amazon reviews for it



Why is it a conspiracy theory book? Who is conspiring?


----------



## narad (May 4, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> News headline reads something like, "Catholic church child trafficking/pedophile/abuse......etc." You; "Yeah they're all guilty hypocrites are corrupt to the core and are going to burn in hell!" Me: "they are also instrumental in starting wars and are a show piece for those that operate behind them"........You: "WHAT? YOU LOONEY CONSPIRACY THEORIST"!



You: "A show piece for those that operate behind them", i.e., a conspiracy. 

Me: "That's a conspiracy theory"


----------



## c7spheres (May 4, 2019)

narad said:


> You: "A show piece for those that operate behind them", i.e., a conspiracy.
> 
> Me: "That's a conspiracy theory"



For some it's a conspiracy theory, for others, a conspiracy hypotheses, for others a conspiracy fact. Just depends what involvement you're in.


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

Double post


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

narad, so are alot of the child abuse scandal headlines considered conspiracy theories.


----------



## narad (May 4, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> narad, so are alot of the child abuse scandal headlines considered conspiracy theories.



I would simply ask if you consider "the existence of a secret cabal of supremely powerful men, pupper masters of the catholic church we know, who create wars at their whim" to be comparably as plausible as "men who are prevented from having a sex and put in positions of power and trust are likely to compromise on their morals to get their dicks sucked".

There's something about a conspiracy theory that says, dispel everything you think you know. And while it's good to be skeptical, the things we think we know are often just the things we know, and the reason we know them is that they're built on top of piles of evidence. The idea that the Jesuits are active players on the current global scene makes little sense in terms of motivation, or of practicality, and I've read as much evidence for its existence as I have for the existence of bigfoot.


----------



## c7spheres (May 4, 2019)

narad said:


> I would simply ask if you consider "the existence of a secret cabal of supremely powerful men, pupper masters of the catholic church we know, who create wars at their whim" to be comparably as plausible as "men who are prevented from having a sex and put in positions of power and trust are likely to compromise on their morals to get their dicks sucked".
> 
> There's something about a conspiracy theory that says, dispel everything you think you know. And while it's good to be skeptical, the things we think we know are often just the things we know, and the reason we know them is that they're built on top of piles of evidence. The idea that the Jesuits are active players on the current global scene makes little sense in terms of motivation, or of practicality, and I've read as much evidence for its existence as I have for the existence of bigfoot.



Speaking of getting one's dick sucked. I'm heading off to the bar! G'day gentlemen.


----------



## possumkiller (May 4, 2019)

narad said:


> I would simply ask if you consider "the existence of a secret cabal of supremely powerful men, pupper masters of the catholic church we know, who create wars at their whim" to be comparably as plausible as "men who are prevented from having a sex and put in positions of power and trust are likely to compromise on their morals to get their dicks sucked".
> 
> There's something about a conspiracy theory that says, dispel everything you think you know. And while it's good to be skeptical, the things we think we know are often just the things we know, and the reason we know them is that they're built on top of piles of evidence. The idea that the Jesuits are active players on the current global scene makes little sense in terms of motivation, or of practicality, and I've read as much evidence for its existence as I have for the existence of bigfoot.


Whoa now don't lump this in with Bigfoot. Bigfoot is almost 100% proved real. The military found footprints just a few days ago.


----------



## StevenC (May 4, 2019)

The Catholic church is pretty surface level evil without having to make up any secret world orders.

Like these guys can't cover that stuff up successfully, how would they be able to... Wait a minute...


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

For starters, Trump went to a Jesuit school. Pope Francis IS a Jesuit, he is the first black pope sitting in the papacy. Hmmm. Im not using this as my proof of Jesuit influence in today, I am just throwing this tidbit out there

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0970499922/?tag=sevenstringorg-20 heres another book

Oh and narad, dude, if they just wanted blowjobs then they could at least hire some hot prostitutes....not abduct little boys.


----------



## TedEH (May 4, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Oh and narad, dude, if they just wanted blowjobs then they could at least hire some hot prostitutes....not abduct little boys.


I am, in some ways, an idiot - and pretty ignorant of the topics in this thread - but even I get the context of what Narad is saying. You realize that prostitutes and kids are equally off limits in that world right?

Also.... is that an affiliate tag at the end of each link or something?


----------



## StevenC (May 4, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I am, in some ways, an idiot - and pretty ignorant of the topics in this thread - but even I get the context of what Narad is saying. You realize that prostitutes and kids are equally off limits in that world right?
> 
> Also.... is that an affiliate tag at the end of each link or something?


SSO turns all Amazon links into affiliate links for the site.


----------



## DudeManBrother (May 4, 2019)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...supranational-authorities-to-enforce-UN-goals

Heretic or not; he sure seems to put his trust in man more than God, as well as try to shoehorn his religious organization firmly into global politics. The Catholic Church has always seemingly had a hard-on for their own authority; even when it directly contradicts the scriptures, such as God’s commandment of keeping the Sabbath day holy, which is Saturday, the last day of each week. Then you get their trinity ideology, worship of Mary, calling themselves Father’s etc. all of which have no scriptural basis, and in some cases, flat out contradict the teachings of Jesus. 

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matthew 23:9

“Sunday is our MARK of authority… the church is ABOVE the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact” (Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1, 1923).

“The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.” This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997

”Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.” C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, a letter dated November 11, 1895.

“Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.” Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157

“The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law”. The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.


----------



## c7spheres (May 4, 2019)

DudeManBrother said:


> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...supranational-authorities-to-enforce-UN-goals
> 
> Heretic or not; he sure seems to put his trust in man more than God, as well as try to shoehorn his religious organization firmly into global politics. The Catholic Church has always seemingly had a hard-on for their own authority; even when it directly contradicts the scriptures, such as God’s commandment of keeping the Sabbath day holy, which is Saturday, the last day of each week. Then you get their trinity ideology, worship of Mary, calling themselves Father’s etc. all of which have no scriptural basis, and in some cases, flat out contradict the teachings of Jesus.
> 
> ...



I agree, and so does Mr Horse. Here's what he has to say:
"NO SIR, I DON"T LIKE IT."


----------



## DudeManBrother (May 4, 2019)

Haha loved that show


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I am, in some ways, an idiot - and pretty ignorant of the topics in this thread - but even I get the context of what Narad is saying. You realize that prostitutes and kids are equally off limits in that world right?
> 
> Also.... is that an affiliate tag at the end of each link or something?


Yes I do realize that they are equally "off limits"... I am not sure what you are trying to say. Kidnapping and/or forcing a child(boy) into sex abuse/slave/trafficking is umpteen million times worse than going to a hooker for a blowjob....in any situation, done by anyone, let alone those living in Vatican City.


----------



## narad (May 4, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Oh and narad, dude, if they just wanted blowjobs then they could at least hire some hot prostitutes....not abduct little boys.



Yea, @TedEH gets it -- unsurprisingly, the point isn't about how priests should best go about getting themselves off. It's that you're trying to compare these two things like they are equally plausible. One requires the action of a single person, caving to the same human weaknesses we see in almost any situation where there is frequently a power dynamic between an older man and just about anyone. The other requires a conspiracy spanning hundreds of years, tens of thousands of people, expressing something equivalent to supreme global power (i.e., the ability to start wars at the level of a major nation state).

So yea, when I see the two headlines I'd naturally consider the priests molesting boys to rank as extremely plausible, whereas I would require anyone suggesting an active Jesuit plot to control the dynamics of the world to require a bit more evidence than he said / she said.

And if your evidence is a 50 year old book that's getting lukewarm reviews and a lot of criticism in the comments section, it doesn't add up.



MetalHex said:


> For starters, Trump went to a Jesuit school.



I hope they conduct conspiracies more effectively than they do education, apparently.


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

narad said:


> Yea, @TedEH gets it -- unsurprisingly, the point isn't about how priests should best go about getting themselves off. It's that you're trying to compare these two things like they are equally plausible. One requires the action of a single person, caving to the same human weaknesses we see in almost any situation where there is frequently a power dynamic between an older man and just about anyone. The other requires a conspiracy spanning hundreds of years, tens of thousands of people, expressing something equivalent to supreme global power (i.e., the ability to start wars at the level of a major nation state).
> 
> So yea, when I see the two headlines I'd naturally consider the priests molesting boys to rank as extremely plausible, whereas I would require anyone suggesting an active Jesuit plot to control the dynamics of the world to require a bit more evidence than he said / she said.
> 
> ...


Dude, are you seriously dismissing a book (in which you asked for sources, I've actually provided two), because it is 50 years old and because of select amazon reviews that confirm your bias? That is extremely short-sighted, unsurprisingly.

This is not a high school book report where I have to provide references on the last page. You have google, no? Like I said, you dont have to believe anything that I am saying. Go and find out for yourself. But I know you wont. So let me ask you, what sources would you consider to be credible since books arent enough?


----------



## narad (May 4, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Dude, are you seriously dismissing a book (in which you asked for sources, I've actually provided two), because it is 50 years old and because of select amazon reviews that confirm your bias? That is extremely short-sighted, unsurprisingly.
> 
> This is not a high school book report where I have to provide references on the last page. You have google, no? Like I said, you dont have to believe anything that I am saying. Go and find out for yourself. But I know you wont. So let me ask you, what sources would you consider to be credible since books arent enough?



https://www.amazon.com/dp/1578595614/?tag=sevenstringorg-20

There. I just proved Bigfoot is real.


----------



## MFB (May 4, 2019)

narad said:


> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1578595614/?tag=sevenstringorg-20
> 
> There. I just proved Bigfoot is real.



According to this hat, hes more than just real


----------



## MetalHex (May 4, 2019)

narad said:


> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1578595614/?tag=sevenstringorg-20
> 
> There. I just proved Bigfoot is real.


^ confirmed troll



narad said:


> It's that you're trying to compare these two things like they are equally plausible


We are not debating whether the Jesuits exist or not....


----------



## narad (May 4, 2019)

MFB said:


> According to this hat, hes more than just real



And the evidence continues to roll in.


----------



## narad (May 4, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> So let me ask you, what sources would you consider to be credible since books arent enough?



In all seriousness: evidence. It takes evidence to convince someone. Why don't we believe in a flat earth? Plenty of people on board with that one. I'm sure someone's written a book. And you want to take your book seriously just because it exists on Amazon? Why don't I believe in a flat earth? Because there's evidence to the contrary. Evidence that is easily obtainable and reproducible, and ties in to existing understandings of many other things which would all need to be re-written if flat earth were true. 

Not "evidence" that comes from a book from the 1960s talking about one guy's story, which otherwise depends on nothing tangible from the real world. Plenty of people have similarly seen Bigfoot, eye witness accounts, etc., why don't we all believe them?


----------



## BenjaminW (May 4, 2019)

Here's an op-ed I found from the LA Times on the whole situation here at hand. Nothing stands out as new but pretty much just restates what's been said. 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/enterthefray/la-ol-pope-heretic-20190504-story.html


----------



## MetalHex (May 5, 2019)

narad said:


> you want to take your book seriously just because it exists on Amazon?


It's not my book. It has nothing to do with the fact that the link is Amazon. It was the first link that came up in my search that had that book.


narad said:


> evidence


What kind of evidence do you want? You want to see with your own eyes, the Jesuits....do...what exactly? visual confirmation is the only proof? If you want me to produce for you a cum/blood stained rag in front of a jury as proof of evidence that the Jesuits create wars and are instrumental in the creation of the CIA, FBI, U.N, you are S.O.L


----------



## possumkiller (May 5, 2019)

USMarine75 said:


>


----------



## StevenC (May 5, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> If you want me to produce for you a cum/blood stained rag in front of a jury as proof of evidence that the Jesuits create wars and are instrumental in the creation of the CIA, FBI, U.N, you are S.O.L


I can't tell if this is entertaining stupid or I'm worried about your health stupid.


----------



## TedEH (May 5, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> This is not a high school book report where I have to provide references on the last page.


This is actually very comparable to that. The whole point of the exercise of references in a school report is to train you to both identify valid sources of information and to be able to back up what you're saying with something credible. That's 100% applicable here.



MetalHex said:


> What kind of evidence do you want?


Any at all would be a good start. (I feel like I've had this same conversation pretty recently. ) Does that book you posted cite its own references? Maybe that would be a good start. A book is not evidence. Anyone can write a book. I could write a book. The author and/or their sources need also to be credible, otherwise you can (as we have) entirely dismiss the information within.


----------



## MetalHex (May 5, 2019)

TedEH said:


> This is actually very comparable to that. The whole point of the exercise of references in a school report is to train you to both identify valid sources of information and to be able to back up what you're saying with something credible. That's 100% applicable here.
> 
> 
> Any at all would be a good start. (I feel like I've had this same conversation pretty recently. ) Does that book you posted cite its own references? Maybe that would be a good start. A book is not evidence. Anyone can write a book. I could write a book. The author and/or their sources need also to be credible, otherwise you can (as we have) entirely dismiss the information within.


The point is that people wanted my sources, i provided just two of them. Thats enough for THEM to pick up the trail and investigate. But it wasnt enough. Every source that anyone could provide is on the internet. Does that book provide sources? Go find out for yourself im not going to hold your hand. Anyone could write a book, or start a website; including the authors' sources, sources, sources, main source. How can you verify that their sources sources sources main source is true and correct. In a high school book report as a kid you went to the library and rented a couple books, then made a book report. At the last page you list what books you read. It was the teachers job to go and verify your sources. And how did they do that? They just read some more books.

As i said 3 times already, you DONT actually have to take my word for it. Go do your own research


----------



## StevenC (May 5, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> The point is that people wanted my sources, i provided just two of them. Thats enough for THEM to pick up the trail and investigate. But it wasnt enough. Every source that anyone could provide is on the internet. Does that book provide sources? Go find out for yourself im not going to hold your hand. Anyone could write a book, or start a website; including the authors' sources, sources, sources, main source. How can you verify that their sources sources sources main source is true and correct. In a high school book report as a kid you went to the library and rented a couple books, then made a book report. At the last page you list what books you read. It was the teachers job to go and verify your sources. And how did they do that? They just read some more books.
> 
> As i said 3 times already, you DONT actually have to take my word for it. Go do your own research


The thing about credibility is that no one credible says "do your own research".


----------



## MetalHex (May 5, 2019)

StevenC said:


> The thing about credibility is that no one credible says "do your own research".


How do you know if someone is credible?


----------



## narad (May 5, 2019)

Gotta wonder if it's time to let the Jesuit conspiracy theories (lol, there's a whole wikipedia page dedicated to the topic) move to the conspiracy theory thread and bring this one back around to the topic of the letter itself. Not that it sounds like there's much there to begin with.


----------



## MetalHex (May 5, 2019)

^ ok. Lets move from the black pope and get back to the white pope conspiring


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 5, 2019)

That's not really how proper sourcing works. 

https://www.umuc.edu/current-studen...nter/writing-resources/evaluating-sources.cfm

There's a reason that American public high school book reports aren't used professionally. It's introductory level, at best. 

If someone wants to be taken seriously, they'll do the legwork and make sure their sources are proper. If they don't feel like doing that, they really can't complain when folks don't take their stance seriously, regardless of the actual content.


----------



## possumkiller (May 5, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> ^ ok. Lets move from the black pope and get back to the white pope conspiring


As far as I know we've never had a black pope. What is so bad about a black pope?


----------



## MetalHex (May 5, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's not really how proper sourcing works.
> 
> https://www.umuc.edu/current-studen...nter/writing-resources/evaluating-sources.cfm
> 
> ...


Thanks. The very last paragraph on that page,

"While none of these may necessarily disqualify or qualify a source, they can help you determine if the website has any biases on either side of an issue or topic."
And with all due respect, you did your include that it was only your 2 cents at the end of the post.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 5, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Thanks. The very last paragraph on that page,
> 
> "While none of these may necessarily disqualify or qualify a source, they can help you determine if the website has any biases on either side of an issue or topic."
> And with all due respect, you did your include that it was only your 2 cents at the end of the post.



What I wrote is my opinion and some insight into your sourcing from an outside perspective non-related to the content, what I linked is an explanation.

Sourcing information isn't necessarily a black and white issue, which is somewhat explained in that link. That said, the burden is yours to prove legitimacy, and if you chose not to, that's on you. Given what you've provided, in a context more serious than "high school book report" your sources would not meet the bar of reliability, at least from my own experiences in higher education.

You're welcome to use whatever source you see fit, but if the source is weak it behooves you to find additional, better ones. If you can't find better sources, or better articulate your ideas, perhaps the idea is not as valid as you hold it to be. Something to think about.


----------



## narad (May 5, 2019)

Spot on.


----------



## MetalHex (May 5, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What I wrote is my opinion and some insight into your sourcing from an outside perspective non-related to the content, what I linked is an explanation.
> 
> Sourcing information isn't necessarily a black and white issue, which is somewhat explained in that link. That said, the burden is yours to prove legitimacy, and if you chose not to, that's on you. Given what you've provided, in a context more serious than "high school book report" your sources would not meet the bar of reliability, at least from my own experiences in higher education.
> 
> You're welcome to use whatever source you see fit, but if the source is week it behooves you to find additional, better ones. If you can't find better sources, or better articulate your ideas, perhaps the idea is not as valid as you hold it to be. Something to think about.


Again though, please define "better source". For example, if in one of these books, the author interviews someone who was/is a member of said Jesuit order, then that would be considered 100% THE source, correct? Or is that hearsay? But then you would want proof that that person was/is in fact a Jesuit priest...like you would want him to send you his badge in the mail.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 5, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Again though, please define "better source". For example, if in one of these books, the author interviews someone who was/is a member of said Jesuit order, then that would be considered 100% THE source, correct? Or is that hearsay? But then you would want proof that that person was/is in fact a Jesuit priest...like you would want him to send you his badge in the mail.



Again, it's not an "all or nothing" thing. There are numerous factors to determine how accurate/valid a source is. 

For example: I am a guitar player. Does that mean everything I say about guitar is 100% truthful and without bias?


----------



## c7spheres (May 5, 2019)

Everyone's complaining about non credible sources etc. It's all the same stuff, a human or group of humans wrote a book. How popular are those humans opinions? It's all a matter of opinion no matter what, actually, unless there is actual proof. But there is no actual proof that the general public will believe at this point on this issue, because if there was it would already have been the mainstream news, therefore it moves into the opinion/conspiracy realm. The best credible source of them all is still considered an opinion and questionable to many which is the Bible itself as a source. The book of Revelations. But even that is something that's been argued over thousand years. Read the book of Revelation. It will explain this was going to happen. It has been foretold. And if you don't believe it then you are questioning Gods' word and credibility, which also just opinion.


----------



## possumkiller (May 5, 2019)

lol


----------



## TedEH (May 5, 2019)

narad said:


> move to the conspiracy theory thread





possumkiller said:


> As far as I know we've never had a black pope. What is so bad about a black pope?





possumkiller said:


> lol


+1 to all of the above.


----------



## Fred the Shred (May 6, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Except the Pope has to invoke infallibility. He can't just say whatever he wants and not be wrong, because that's ridiculous. It only works when he's explicitly defining church doctrine.



He only needs to define doctrine, it is not invoked, if you'll excuse my splitting hairs here - it was a dogma before and made official in the XIX Century (Pastor Aeternum, IIRC, would need to check on that), much to the dismay of the less conservative wings of the church, but hardly relevant in light of what it entails: given how the definition of doctrine by the pope is infallible as it stems from divine revelation, amidst other terms, how can the very same person who is given enlightenment by none other than God himself in matters of the church be a heretic? Is it a part time thing? A very selective timing for divine choice that somehow is switched off now and again? No matter how we look at this, it's quite comical at best.


----------



## Drew (May 6, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> "You're spouting straight-up conspiracy theories. Am I supposed to pretend to take you seriously? "
> 
> Thread Topic - "Pope Francis Accused of Heresy By Members of the Catholic Church"
> 
> ...


Yes, Politics and Current events, where we disclose it's a strictly moderated forum, where you should use your best judgement before posting. I.e - not the sort of place you should spout off conspiracy theories and then not back them up. 

And I don't think you realized spudmonkey wasn't serious, but was immitating the typical conspiracy theory trolling.


----------



## MetalHex (May 6, 2019)

Drew said:


> Yes, Politics and Current events, where we disclose it's a strictly moderated forum, where you should use your best judgement before posting. I.e - not the sort of place you should spout off conspiracy theories and then not back them up.
> 
> And I don't think you realized spudmonkey wasn't serious, but was immitating the typical conspiracy theory trolling.


I have provided links where I got my info from....whether someone thinks they are valid or not, is on them. (I know books aren't "proof", but it seems like people want sperm samples around here).

Last night I was fired up for a moment, sat down, pulled out the compass and rule, feather and ink, and start compiling all of my sources together, to come up with "evidence", then about 20 minutes in I started loosing steam, and I realized that I am just waisting my time doing this. So I walked away from it. I would love to discuss these matters with people who are geuinely interested. But if I cant provide enough evidence, then people won't be interested. And while I think I CAN provide enough evidence...it certainly wont convince anybody...not that I am trying to. It seems people here will have already dismissed anything I can bring forth, before I even do.


----------



## StevenC (May 6, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I have provided links where I got my info from....whether someone thinks they are valid or not, is on them. (I know books aren't "proof", but it seems like people want sperm samples around here).
> 
> Last night I was fired up for a moment, sat down, pulled out the compass and rule, feather and ink, and start compiling all of my sources together, to come up with "evidence", then about 20 minutes in I started loosing steam, and I realized that I am just waisting my time doing this. So I walked away from it. I would love to discuss these matters with people who are geuinely interested. But if I cant provide enough evidence, then people won't be interested. And while I think I CAN provide enough evidence...it certainly wont convince anybody...not that I am trying to. It seems people here will have already dismissed anything I can bring forth, before I even do.


I'm really not trying to be rude or mean or anything, but it seems like you just wrote "if I can't provide anything compelling people won't be compelled."


----------



## MetalHex (May 6, 2019)

StevenC said:


> I'm really not trying to be rude or mean or anything, but it seems like you just wrote "if I can't provide anything compelling people won't be compelled."


It's compelling to me though. I'll leave it at that


----------



## possumkiller (May 7, 2019)

I'm just wondering what it has to do with the next polar flip and cataclysm we are overdue for and this book that was classified by the CIA in the 60s. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00752A000300070001-8.pdf


----------



## BenjaminW (May 7, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's not really how proper sourcing works.
> 
> https://www.umuc.edu/current-studen...nter/writing-resources/evaluating-sources.cfm
> 
> ...


Oh I didn't know this was an English class.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 7, 2019)

BenjaminW said:


> Oh I didn't know this was an English class.



If you think that only has bearing in English I have very bad news for you.


----------



## BenjaminW (May 7, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> If you think that only has bearing in English I have very bad news for you.


Sounds fun.


----------



## Demiurge (May 7, 2019)

Been a while since I've been a Catholic, but this really sounds like a matter for the Grand Inquisitor to clear up. There will be an Inquisition, right?


----------



## Xaios (May 7, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> Been a while since I've been a Catholic, but this really sounds like a matter for the Grand Inquisitor to clear up. There will be an Inquisition, right?


Nobody expects the Francis Inquisition!


----------



## StevenC (May 7, 2019)

That would be an Ecumenical matter


----------



## Drew (May 7, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I would love to discuss these matters with people who are geuinely interested. But if I cant provide enough evidence, then people won't be interested. And while I think I CAN provide enough evidence...it certainly wont convince anybody...not that I am trying to. It seems people here will have already dismissed anything I can bring forth, before I even do.



As a general rule of thumb... If you want to make a claim that runs counter to broadly, near-universally-held beliefs, and you want that claim to be taken seriously, you'd better be making a strong case. If conventional wisdom is that the Caltholic Church and the Pope are exactly who they say they are, and you want to claim that they're actually a face for a shadowly cabel who _really_ call all the shots... Then, the onus on you is to provide some pretty compelling evidence for that. Could the "conventional wisdom" be wrong? Sure. But, to reject it means you need to have a reasonable basis for that, and if you don't want to be laughed out of the room for making outlandish-sounding claims, then don't be offended when someone asks you for evidence for what you believe.


----------



## Demiurge (May 7, 2019)

I wasn't giving the Jesuits enough credit as conspirators. Only today I learned that they were also accused of sinking the Titanic- of all things!


----------



## MetalHex (May 7, 2019)

Drew said:


> As a general rule of thumb... If you want to make a claim that runs counter to broadly, near-universally-held beliefs, and you want that claim to be taken seriously, you'd better be making a strong case. If conventional wisdom is that the Caltholic Church and the Pope are exactly who they say they are, and you want to claim that they're actually a face for a shadowly cabel who _really_ call all the shots... Then, the onus on you is to provide some pretty compelling evidence for that. Could the "conventional wisdom" be wrong? Sure. But, to reject it means you need to have a reasonable basis for that, and if you don't want to be laughed out of the room for making outlandish-sounding claims, then don't be offended when someone asks you for evidence for what you believe.


Well first you have to define what qualifies for evidence on the internet.


----------



## Drew (May 7, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Well first you have to define what qualifies for evidence on the internet.


Maybe you should start with what convinced _you_ there was a shadow papacy.

I mean... Have you ever written a research paper? Do you know _how_ to make a properly cited, sourced, persuasive argument? So far you seem pretty good at making excuses and denials and walking back statements, but maybe you could try a more _proactive _approach, you know?


----------



## MetalHex (May 7, 2019)

Drew said:


> Maybe you should start with what convinced _you_ there was a shadow papacy.
> 
> I mean... Have you ever written a research paper? Do you know _how_ to make a properly cited, sourced, persuasive argument? So far you seem pretty good at making excuses and denials and walking back statements, but that's about all I've seen.




....You didnt/couldn't answer my question....


----------



## Mathemagician (May 7, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> ....You didnt/couldn't answer my question....



He literally did. Follow globally accepted academic standards for citing sources in a prepared report.



Related: Also I would read the FUCK about of a book about a shadow papacy. But it better be crazy convoluted and have mad assassin sub plots too.


----------



## jaxadam (May 7, 2019)

Drew said:


> Maybe you should start with what convinced _you_ there was a shadow papacy.
> 
> I mean... Have you ever written a research paper? Do you know _how_ to make a properly cited, sourced, persuasive argument? So far you seem pretty good at making excuses and denials and walking back statements, but maybe you could try a more _proactive _approach, you know?



I do!

-The earth is 6000 years old. (wikipedia et al, 420 BC)

-The earth is flat. (reddit et al, 2008)

-jaxadam is the best guitar player period (some asshole on the internet et al, 2019)


----------



## Drew (May 7, 2019)

jaxadam said:


> -jaxadam is the best guitar player period (some asshole on the internet et al, 2019)


I'm sure I said that while drunk once! 



MetalHex said:


> ....You didnt/couldn't answer my question....


I did - "Maybe you should start with what convinced YOU in the first place," and then suggested you go about it like you would a research paper. I mean, _you're _the one who believes that what everyone _else_ believes is wrong, and what we believe to be the Papacy is just a puppet show for a secret society pulling all the strings. Why do you believe that? What was it that convinced you that something you could easily verify with your own eyes and ears was false?


----------



## tedtan (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I would love to discuss these matters with people who are geuinely interested.



We've had conspiracy theory threads in the Off Topic subforum before that generated several pages of discussion/speculation. If you genuinely want to discuss this topic, I'd suggest starting a thread over there. Here in P&CE, people will expect a higher standard of proof given the nature of this subforum.


----------



## mpexus (May 9, 2019)

Any more doubts of the Church always going along with who is in Power? Now wonder why the Vatican refuses to allow viewing of anything after 1939 from their archives.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 9, 2019)

Fred the Shred said:


> Well, Catholic "tradition and morals" also states the infallible nature of the Pope. As such, he can't commit heresy at all. Ah, to be bitten in the proverbial arse by your own dogmas...


It's going to take me a while to get through the whole crapfest that this thread seems to be (found it after the other thread), but this is inaccurate. The Pope is only considered infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra, which is incredibly rare. There have been Popes who have declared things that are now considered heretical.


----------



## Fred the Shred (May 10, 2019)

Yes, however as postulated formally in the Pastor Aeternum somewhere in the XIX Century, but even that is a confirmation of previous statements, some of which are far more radical, as seen in the Dictatus Papae (which can be argued as a proposition).

The holiness of renouncing to material possessions and the concept of Christ and Apostles having no possessions of their own, due to the Franciscan wing of the "Spirituals" pushing it as doctrine, for example, places two doctrinary papal documents in conflict: Nicholas III, while not stating that Christ had indeed no possessions, did remark the holiness of rejecting oneself and whatever wordly things as "most holy" when done in the name of God in a papal bull, yet as pressure climbed John XXII, due to other matters that did tie to this, officially made it "heretical" to merely claim that Jesus and the Apostles had no material possessions of their own. This in itself was enough to prompt outrage and a rather nasty uproar enough for John XXII to state, in a following bull, that he was not contradicting his predecessors, since Nicholas never stated that specifically Jesus and the Apostles had no possessions - it ended up being a semantics debate to prevent the uproar of disturbing the unwritten rule of infallibility.

All this to say that whenever we look beyond the official definition of "papal infallibility" there's a lot more to the tradition that is invoked as reasoning to accuse Francis of heresy. Historically, there's a lot more poiting to the Pastor Aeternum writing being there not to affirm papal sovereignty but rather to limit the scope of the infallibility that had been in place (and used very questionably as seen in the Crusades and Inquisition, for example) for centuries. Let us not kid ourselves here: the "tradition of the Church" has been used quite selectively over the centuries to push any given agenda, and the Pope is only at stake whenever he is threatening money, power, or both.

You're welcome to disagree with my position, but the dogma and the limitation of infallibility to doctrinal teachings are definitely NOT the tradition, but rather an elegant way to prevent the notion of infallibility from being used as a justification for everything convenient, and the Church has a long history of that happening, unfortunately.


----------



## Fred the Shred (May 10, 2019)

Had to dig a little bit for this, but here's St. Bellarmine's assertion, as duly made a matter of faith in the 4th Council of Constantinople, published and signed by the fathers:
"The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor."

So either Pope Hormisdas is blatantly wrong, which can't happen seeing as the statement emanates from a proclamation of faith after a Council and thus _Ex Cathedra_, or the Pope can't be deposed as some tradionalist circles are pushing for. Even the whole Honorius (quite dubious, due to how his letters were interpreted) anathema debacle was taken into consideration when this was written (as well as the Pastor Aeternum), but truth is simple: unless the proponents of this deposition are denouncing the Church and its doctrine as possessing errors (and, ironically, committing heresy while doing so), they are asking for what is in essence a heresy in itself.

Even those with more moderate pretensions will have to know that a Pope being wrong or committing anything one can label as heresy stems from no ill will or sinful nature, but rather from not knowing better, as once again the often cited St. Bellarmine says:
“…the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers”.


----------



## WhiteLightOfDeath (Jul 7, 2019)

If that’s authentic, quite unprecedented, especially considering the times...cuuurazzzyyy
Crazy interesting, thanks for sharing


----------

