this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
-6 points (28.6% liked)

Christianity

53 readers
1 users here now

about christian life and faith, no atheism or trolling allowed, every comment by atheists will result in permanent ban.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Considered by a growing minority as a non-Catholic antipope who continued the "Vatican 2" revolt against Catholicism, the late "Francis" in our view continually pushed heterodox ideology at odds with traditional Catholic belief and practice.

While I do not necessarily agree with the all these critiques of him or how they're delivered, here's a laundry list of articles that viewed him in the most negative light, from a "traditional Catholic" (sedevacantist) perspective: https://novusordowatch.org/francis/

It would be nice to see at this point before a new "pope" is elected to continue the confusion, of there being a global rejection of Vatican 2's "reforms" and of there then being a conclave to elect an unquestionably Catholic pope.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not Catholic, but I just read a lot these links with quotes from the late Pope and feel like he was a very empathetic and humble teacher! A person who tried very hard not to speak for God, but rather leave a lot of room for the very real risk that a lot of previous teachings were perhaps biased and not biblical. Or even if the teachings were accurate, that being militant, turning away, and condemning outsiders was an unhealthy stance. Tolerance, empathy, humility, love for all mankind. These things perhaps are not as militant as some would like, but sound very Christlike. For example, the Pope receiving a trans couple and welcoming them sounds a lot like Christ spending time with prostitutes and welcoming them.

It always makes me sad when a leader tries to be loving and open to outsiders, but their followers want them to be angry and judgemental to outsiders.

I'm sorry for those who were raised with judgemental church teachings who found this Pope to be too loving and open to all. That they crave a leader who will condemn non-believers, who will preach fire and brimstone. That path of "othering" non-believers (or slightly different believers) has led down the paths of unholy violence and hate countless times. Why would someone read the Bible and history and still want that level of judgement and anger from a leader? To have people to look down on and feel superior to? For the feeling of righteous indignation and anger? What could be more unchristian than that? Than the most vile sin of pride?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

a leader who will condemn non-believers

While a leader might be kind and caring in speech, he'd also have to be subject to the rules and enforce them at some level (note that popes are "above the law" to some extent, but this is a different discussion).

Think for example of a forum like this that we are using: "rulebreakers" are banned. Imagine someone posting illegal content for example, they might be banned (and arrested) in society.

Now imagine unbelievers being in danger of being sent to prison forever (hell). Wouldn't the "kind" thing be to follow the rules yourself and set a good example for others, as well as to explain the rules clearly? Wouldn't someone who teaches people the wrong rules, that ends up getting such people in trouble, be thought to be a "bad" leader?

I think that's how Francis is viewed, he says words that are thought to be "kind", but which are ultimately harmful to people. Imagine if you were going to drive a car that was not safe to drive, and someone "kindly" instructs you that you're fine to drive it, to go ahead, and then you crash and are injured. This was not "kindness" then; instead, the person could have "kindly" warned such a person not to drive such a dangerous car.

Francis seemed to consistently speak and do bizarre things against a traditional Catholic way of life; we could discuss the matter further if it doesn't seem clearer upon further investigation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sedevacantists are just Protestants in denial

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this is a common objection, although there are clear differences

Francis for example had said, "Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken.": https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/

By this logic, it wouldn't matter if a person is Catholic or protestant to be "justified". Ergo it seems Francis would be the one in error and leading people in to error, more like the protestants than the sedevacantists

However, I think ordinarily these conversations become more unproductively antagonistic as they are part of temporary confusing conflicts. To me it seems clear the current papal lineage is invalid, and all those who claim to be Catholic ideally need to come to agreement about this, and then elect a pope that is actually valid. We are living in the temporary period of confusion leading up to this future moment of clarity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Let’s look at some of the Lutheran tenets shared by this Declaration.

In §3, The Common Understanding of Justification, we read, no. 15: “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works” [3].

Same paragraph, no. 17: it is jointly declared that “God’s saving action in Christ tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way” [4].

Finally, there is §4.1, Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification, no. 19, where it is jointly stated, as if it were absolutely obvious to us Catholics, that “[j]ustification takes place solely by God’s grace” [5].

This is all stuff from St Paul, though.

Romans 5:15-16

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The basic Catholic / Lutheran (protestant) rift was: Catholics believe faith and works justify, protestants believe "faith alone" justifies. Ergo saying Luther is correct on justification seems to logically imply no need for works for salvation which is contrary to Catholic teaching.

And actually a lot of "evangelicals" according to recent polls (2017) do seem to believe salvation is by faith and works (even though this is traditionally associated with Catholicism): https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary

At the very least, it would be important for "Francis" to make sure this distinction is upheld and to affirm Luther was justly excommunicated for heresy. The continued acts of "Francis" show he is clearly trying to bend or deny this distinction. He hasn't done something like this once, but literally dozens of times, for example this defunct site lists some questionable statements made: https://web.archive.org/web/20200115152651/http://www.francisquotes.com/

Y / N ?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

It is semantics in the end. Protestants believe that Faith produces good works. So in both scenarios, a saved person is one who is doing good works. It's just the mentality is different.