Can a pope be 'a bad pope' to Catholics? Or do they have to follow him or her no matter what?

The good Pope is stuck in the lodge!

>or her
Is a female pope even possible? Are there any female cardinals or priestesses?

Why are you telling lies on the Internet instead of maybe researching what Catholics actually believe

No, women cannot be priests.

Shhhh, you're going to interrupt the rhythm of their strokes.

AFAIK it's only when the Pope uses it.

If he just say some shit about the implications of God and the gayness of traps then it doesn't matter unless the Pope says he is using his power. Sounds like a videogame desu.

Only thing that could support such an idea would be the case of Pope Joan, who's largely seen as fictionnal nowadays.

The possibility of it ever happening seems unlikely.

Because they are retarded and have never actually read about the concept of ex cathedra, but still pretend to understand it.

That said I am orthodox and think the Pope has been full of shit since fili

That is exactly what Catholics believe. the councils cannot make up new dogma, they can only affirm things the church has always believed true as dogma, and that includes the infallibility teachings

>the pope was always infallible
Ex cathedra, yes. But there's only a handful of provable statements made by popes in situations fulffilling the requirements before 1870, so it's a moot point.

At one time they had three separate popes. You can't expect logic from them when it comes to their church, as Catholics with fight tooth and nail to prove the RCC's position as God's church. Nevertheless, Catholics are more rational than their protestant counterparts.

>At one time they had three separate popes.
There never was a point where the catholic church acknowledged more than one pope. Having pretenders hardly invalids the concept.

You don't seem to know what they are in any depth though.

All popes are evil, vicious bastards.

Do you people even know they used to sell the papal seat to the highest bidders?

Do you people even know who the Borgias were?

Except when there was.

Thank God for Napoleon.

Of course not. In depth knowledge of the Catholic church drives people out, not brings them in to be fleeced.

When? When did the church acknowledge more than one pope?
Having two or more factions supporting different people is a completely different situation. Might as well count all condemned heresies as accepted catholic doctrine too by that measure.

t. proddy

try reading more

>two or more factions
That's exactly what the church was until mass secularization. Cardinals scheming against each other for power. Saying this wasn't the true church is akin to the crazy "but I was possessed by demons" excuse.

And why would that matter to the argument?
Schismatic factions hardly invalidate the church as a whole, else "God's church" would have stopped existing just a few years after Jesus croaked. Fucking hell, every single denomination was born off a schism. If that's your issue with catholicism, you ought to realize you actually have an issue with christianity (and most organized religions for that matter) instead.

I never implied that Catholics consider everything the pope says or does infallible. But its a fact Catholics believe the infallibility dogma was always true, despite it being quite obvious that this was never a universal belief of the ancient church. It was at most an interpretation of apostolic authority unique to western Christianity

>Schismatic factions hardly invalidate the church as a whole
Well it's hard to claim your church is the only true church when even the church itself can't even decide on who the pope is. It's also hard to claim the pope is the vicar of Christ when there is a plethora of rather sinful, hedonistic popes.

>Fucking hell, every single denomination was born off a schism.
Not the Eastern Orthodoxy.

Oh come off it, If a religion is regionally divided, and over time the the regional branches change from each other to the point they dont get along anymore, its hard to say that one of them broke off from the other.

And before we point to the early church let us remember it was pretty much a constant storm of heresies and controversies until orthodoxy was forced through a mixture of consensus building and government pressure

>hurr..temporal issues..durr
Again: you don't have an issue with christianity, you have an issue with the concept of organized religion. Maybe you oughta just be agnostic instead.

>Not the Eastern Orthodoxy.
Top fucking kek. Both parties of a schism are schismatic from the other's point of view. Why should eastern orthodoxy be considered more legitimate when their opposite still persists? Not to mention that christianity was basically "every community for itself" for the first few centuries, so there are uncountable other schisms that invalidate whatever claim orthodoxy might have on this basis regardless.

>But its a fact Catholics believe the infallibility dogma was always true, despite it being quite obvious that this was never a universal belief of the ancient church.
What does the belief of the early church have to do with whether something was true or not? It's a non sequitur. The early fathers did not know of papal infallibility, but it still was a thing.

>being ignorant to Maurice Blondel

Catholics are slave people and the fact that they follow a self-styled, human-elected "messenger of god" on earth is already a huge defeat in the terms of religion. It's pathetic.

I guess Napoleon wasn't a big enough clue for you.

>Might as well count all condemned heresies as accepted catholic doctrine

You'd be right to do so. Catholic doctrine is nothing but contemptible heresies.

me english gud

t. papist

And on top of that, it's unfalsifiable. The pope ex cathedra is infallible, unless he's wrong, and then it's the pope who is wrong. Not the church. Not the chair.

It's bullshit.

There can indeed be a bad pope. There have been several bad popes, in fact. Alexander VI was probably the worst pope ever.

Catholics are nonetheless compelled to follow the papacy and swear it a certain amount of allegiance. The man holding the office can be bad, but as long as he doesn't do anything to disrupt the doing of God's will in the broader Church nothing's to be done about him. This is an ancient concept, so it's not surprised modern people have trouble with it. It's a matter of fealty to a ruler with divine authority.

Every authority should be questioned, be it a spiritual or a governing one. In a way, the pope happens to be both.

God in His wisdom might be infallible; but humans are, by their nature, imperfect and prone to making mistakes - even if the pope is, supposedly, chosen by God to lead His believers, it doesn't change the fact that he is still human.

There is nothing wrong in disliking the pope, even if one considers themselves a devout Catholic; as long as they have a legitimate reason for the disliking, of course.

Our KJV

Who art in bookshelf

Inken be thy words

Thy Proddies come

Thy text be done

In tongues as it is in megachurches

Our Book of Sovereign James, who art bound in leather,

with iron gall are made thine words, on a press, by no quill of papist monk.

Give us this day our daily division of pronouns between thy and you, and forgive us for considering douay-rheims, as we forgive the papists for denying Henry his wife.

And lead us not into the temptations of non-textus-receptus translations, but deliver us from vulgate. For yours are the cords and the vellum and the square set type of gutenberg, forever.

Amen.

>What does the belief of the early church have to do with whether something was true or not?

Because a dogma must be something the church as always held true. You cant "discover" a previously unknown dogma.

I don't think you quite appreciate what he's trying to say.

When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he IS infallible. Period. By the very will of God he is infallible. It is simply not within the order of the universe for him to be wrong. The condition for the pope to be incorrect when speaking ex cathedra does not exist in reality.

The bible. Kryptonite to Catholics, who must mock it.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

"Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)

No pope is ever infallible.

When a pope ex cathedra announced that Mary is divine, he was blasphemous, not infallible.

And yes, that happened.

There were only two popes acknowledged by the catholic church throughout the napoleonic period, and they most certainly did not hold the position at the same time.

Pope Liberius who allegedly subscribed to the heresy that Jesus was not God, Arianism, by signing and approving of an Arian Creed.

The Catholics say the fact is that Liberius signed a document containing a statement about Jesus in creed form that could have been interpreted in an Arian sense or in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Plus, they say that he was in exile so he could have been forced. Catholics stress that no pope can give an infallible teaching except in freedom – this is a bizarre teaching for if God protects his Church from error he will give it the heroic virtues to help it stand by the truth no matter what like he does for so many saints. For God not to do this means God can let Hell win over his Church. Even if the error is soon corrected it still happened and led people astray. When the pope is forced he does not intend the Church to accept his doctrine. It can’t always be clear if the pope is forced.

Case in point.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Gee, thus disproving that there is only one.

In an age where there are two living popes.

Is logic also a victim of Popery? I think so.

The fuck? Pius VI ended his pontificate in 1799, Pius VII started in 1800. How the fuck were there two popes at the same time?

Gee, maybe not them.

Are you this dim on all matters? Or just matters spiritual?

Since you're such a sport, I'll give you another false pope who made a false statement while being infallible.

Pope Honorius is used as proof of papal fallibility for he allegedly taught the Monothelite heresy in his letter to Sergius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople. This doctrine said that Jesus had just one will while Catholic doctrine said that Jesus had two, a human and a divine will. Sergius subscribed to the heresy.

Honorius wrote a letter to Sergius which still exists. A second letter exists but only in fragments (page 30, The Church in the Christian Roman Empire, Studies in Comparative Religion, Rev Phillip Hughes, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1964).

And another!

Pope Vigilius officially taught and supported heresy against the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person (page 149, Pope Fiction). He is said to have been a fake pope at that time for he deposed a pope and took his place (page 124, Reasons for Hope). The real pope excommunicated Vigilius. We read in Reasons for Hope page 124 that this pope, Silverus, was the only member of the Catholic Church for all the rest had apostatised to Vigilius! Jesus founded an astounding religion if it gets into messes like this! Later, Vigilius was validly elected pope two years following the appalling death of Silverus who was later proclaimed a saint. The election was bizarre. Reasons for Hope says that the electors couldn’t choose another pope because he would go the same way as Silverus so they were forced to elect Vigilius (page 125). What is obvious from this is that they held the election not out of a desire to pick a successor for Silverus but to get rid of the appalling Vigilius but they found it wasn’t possible because of political blackmail so they were forced to elect Vigilius. Another thing that is obvious is that the election contradicts the Catholic doctrine that if force happens the election is invalid but still they consider Vigilius a true pope probably because the Church accepted him at the time.

>maybe not them
If not them then you're not talking about catholic popes, so it doesn't matter.

And another!

Pope Leo X who died in 1521 stated that all papal bulls were infallible (page 271, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vol 1). He obviously intended this to be an infallible statement for the whole Church for that is what you mean when you call something infallible. Even the most rigid Roman Catholic would say Leo was wrong so why is he not listed as a heretic then?

>Anything to keep the lie going. Even though dozens of popes were excommunicated, and even though anti-popes populate the "unbroken chain of apostolic succession".

kek

What losers you papists are. Seriously.

Jerome stated bluntly, “The episcopate at Rome has no more authority than any other episcopate” (Epistles cxlvi).

So strange history doesn't back up your claims.

Also all this(excluding the Chalcedon thing. Cyril sweetalked the Pope into making him the papal representative at the meetings)

None of these are formal instances of ex cathedra.

>literally believing that somebody is infalliable because he said that he was infalliable
I sometimes forget how insane religion is

Other than scientism and similar cults, which religions do this?

Well that's the thing, Catholics would never consider a pope saying something heretical as speaking excathedra, even if that was most likely the pope's intent.

Somehow an element would be found missing in the most convenient way possible

>Borgias were evil
hello, go play Assassin's Creed and don't disturb our discussion

>him or her
>her
woman cannot be pope you dumb fucking nigger