PACHAMAMA

PACHAMAMA

PACHAMAMA

PACHAMAMA daba dee daba die

^

Recognize and resist is a cope in of itself.

[Matthew 12:36]

+setversion DRA

Sedevacantism is the logical conclusion of any true Catholic.

VII’s conclusion is joe

Joe pachamama

@Mozalbete ⳩ can going to an NO mass lead to sin?

SSPX is invalid

Your response was a poop meme

<:turk:509493332443922462>

R&R is uncatholic

You cannot ‘resist’ the pope

What saints

If you mean the post VII saints a lot of the more famous canonizations aren’t Catholics, like mother Theresa and JPII

Padre pio should be a saint however

What ‘nonsense’

You mean the pope who apparently denied the beatific vision

Or was that another one

**Do Pope Vigilius’s Actions During the Three Chapters Controversy Contradict the Unfailing Reliability of Papal Teaching?**

I think the answer to this question must be no. The main argument that is usually made is that Pope Vigilius contradicted himself and waffled around a lot during the course of the controversy, and that this is incompatible with papal infallibility. But it isn’t. Remember that the Catholic doctrine is that while all papal teaching is reliable as far as it goes, it is not all definitive or unchangeable. If the Pope presents a position on something as the final word for all time, then it is to be accepted as precisely that. But if a Pope presents a position, or makes a decree, and does not communicate that it is the final answer for all time, then no one is obliged to accept it as such (in fact, it would be wrong to accept it as such, because it would violate the Pope’s intention in teaching it).

That want the argument

I’m not following him

You guys follow him and say you’re not

The pope is the Vicar of Christ

That’s not what I believe @Mozalbete ⳩

Are you just copy and pasting off of an SSPX website @Based Chav

I’m a sedevacantist

By who the emperor? @Mozalbete ⳩

How can a council be ecumenical without the popes approval so why would it be their wish to jail him when they couldn’t he ecumenical otherwise.

No

That’s not true

I want to see this document in question

I’m sure you’re misrepresenting it

Can you stop being a golem and chuckling in the corner

No

What golem?

Can you cut it out seriously, I’m trying to talk with this other guy.

Yes

Because I’m not confirmed

Yes we do

This guy lmao

What was his error @Mozalbete ⳩

Why are you scared

I’m literally fine

That isn’t heresy lmao

No it isn’t. Ignorance isn’t heresy, however it’s sinful.

I’m sure he had a purpose for this as well