Thank you EUIV Extended Timeline mod

:o

a French scholar that studies today's events in comparison with Ancient events made a very interesting comparison between the current state of islam and the kitos war

his analysis has flaws, but he says that islam will probably become more and more violent, leading to a similar state that will force Europeans to do some ethnic cleansing

+ he argues in favor of a collapse of islam, as with Judaism, and that it will become a tiny kind of thing, just as with Judaism.
But he omits some factors (the coming of Christ) and has a very modernistic view that I despise (he says that the end of islam will be cause by the "absorption" of islam in Christianity, in a kind of syncretic way)

Interesting but makes me want to puke

https://scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/the-hitler-icon-how-mount-athos-honored-the-fuhrer/

p. interesting

Ew syncretism

I mean, recognizing Jews and Mudslimes not as separate faiths but as heretic sects and baptising them into the closest significant diocese irrespective of denomination sounds great though

Has to be Chalcedonian though :^)

if they're heretic, we're not baptizing them

but I think the error is due to the dude's modernism

it's because in Vatican II it is stated that the Holy Spirit is to some extent present in every religion or something like that

but the destruction of mahometism can come from a traditionalist rechristianization + a new counter-reform, resulting in moslems seeing what Christians really are

and moslems that are westernized and consumerists would see how shit they morally are

and how carnal their religion is

Yeah their religion is spiritually empty

Is it ecumenicalism if I sat next to a rc priest on a park bench?

Asking for a friend

https://www.facebook.com/743870385730868/photos/a.743901952394378/1835510529900176/?type=3&theater

Afrikaans

I can tell by the double negatives

Hey fellas, Catholic here trying to return to the Church. Is the "resistance" position tenable? I see arguments on both sides but its unclear to me who is correct, people like Sedes who say its impossible for popes to be heretics or more mainline traditionalists who say that popes can maintain jurisdiction while being heretical. I basically don't want to become a fullblown sede/schismatic but I find it hard not to see the current popes as being in severe error.
Anyone have any good arguments regarding this stuff? If the position is untenable then I see it as invalidating catholicism and I'd probably become an <:orthokike:291522285020512256> or something, but I want to find a philosophically consistent position that allows for tradition with spiraling into sedevacautism

Sensus Fidelium has good vids on this topic

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/but-the-pope-said-so-excuses-that-may-not-help-on-judgment-day

This was a good article, I thought.

Yes, we want to remain in the one true Church. *But* at the same time if the leaders are wrong and we are able to do the research ourselves, we should do so, and hold to Christ's teaching.

@Mephisto there's some interesting stuff about that issue by a Frenchman, but it would take me ages to translate it tbh

long story short he says we cannot say that the pope isn't the pope as long as he doesn't proclaim a heresy in the forms of an infaillible statement

so outside of that context then the pope can be a heretic

and ill read the article above in minute

__but__ that you can shift towards rationalism if you reject magisterium from your own point of view (comparing it to the constant doctrine)

so he says that in order not to fall in the two extremes (modernism/sedevacantism), you have to be prudent

and that you need to accept the __hypothesis__ (not fact, except if it is made clear) of both the possibility of a vacance of the Siege / possibility that they were just bad popes

but in the end, it will end in the same way, the solution will come from the Church

be it anathema or condemnations

he says that the best position is that of the Resistance, but that their full rejection of the hypothesis of the vacance of the throne of Peter is questionable

That's basically the position I would ideally take, I'm more wondering what the historical case for it all is.
Like for example there are historical documents saying the latin mass can't be changed, that touching the eucharist with unordained hands is forbidden etc. and all of this happens nowadays.
So we either have to view this stuff as stuff that shouldnt be happen and should eventually be changed back or we have to view it as invalidating the modern church's teachings, as far as I can see.

Sedes will argue for the latter but I guess I'm wondering if theres a historical argument for the former

tbh I find SSPX nice since my priests are very trad ones