You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
Vlad_The_Impaler on scored.co
1 year ago0 points(+0/-0)2 children
u/CrusaderPepe and I debated this.
He claims that God intervention must remove the pope.
My argument is we clearly know he is a fraud, and God has given us the wisdom to know he is a fraud, therefore we should apprehend him ourselves and beat him to death for glorifying sodomy and washing niggers' feet.
What I am putting forth is the authoritative Catholic teaching that you cannot commit an evil act (murder) that a good result comes from it (removal of a bad Pope). Catholic teaching is that both the act and result must be morally permissible for the whole thing to be moral. Also, it is a sin to kill one of God's anointed ones, which has it's Biblical basis in 1 Samuel/Kings chapter 24, where David refused to kill King Saul, when he had the chance, even though Saul was a wicked king.
Your opinion, on the other hand, is your opinion, and it sounds like your moral basis is consequentialism/utilitarianism (i.e. "the end justifies the means") instead of Catholic morality, as I illustrated above.
So... not really a "debate", even though we do disagree.
I'm fine with you having your opinion, though, and agreeing to disagree, just as long as you express it as such, and don't try to represent it as a valid Catholic opinion.
Hopefully, this clarifies our positions, and settles that it's just a gentlemen's disagreement. Take care, and God bless!
Actually... Church moral teaching does go against what Vlad says, I am afraid...
It's Catholic teaching that you cannot commit an evil act (murder) that a good result comes from it (removal of a bad Pope). Catholic teaching is that both the act and result must be morally permissible for the whole thing to be moral. In addition to this (as if it wasn't enough), it is a sin to kill one of God's anointed ones (which means no Papicide), which has it's Biblical basis in 1 Samuel/Kings chapter 24, where David refused to kill King Saul, when he had the chance, even though Saul was a wicked king.
Hopefully, this clarifies Catholic teaching. God bless!
> It's Catholic teaching that you cannot commit an evil act (murder) ...
Nobody talking about actually impaling the fucker. That doesn't mean the Cardinals can't gather and convene on ALL the heretical shit this "pope" has said and done to toss him out. I've read works by Canonical Doctors that argue that Bergoglio has recused himself with all he's done so far.
Sorry if I misunderstood. Vlad was talking about actual Papicide (in our previous conversations, at least) which is why I brought it up. And yes, you are correct that a council could convict a Pope of being a heretic and depose him. God bless!
He claims that God intervention must remove the pope.
My argument is we clearly know he is a fraud, and God has given us the wisdom to know he is a fraud, therefore we should apprehend him ourselves and beat him to death for glorifying sodomy and washing niggers' feet.
What I am putting forth is the authoritative Catholic teaching that you cannot commit an evil act (murder) that a good result comes from it (removal of a bad Pope). Catholic teaching is that both the act and result must be morally permissible for the whole thing to be moral. Also, it is a sin to kill one of God's anointed ones, which has it's Biblical basis in 1 Samuel/Kings chapter 24, where David refused to kill King Saul, when he had the chance, even though Saul was a wicked king.
Your opinion, on the other hand, is your opinion, and it sounds like your moral basis is consequentialism/utilitarianism (i.e. "the end justifies the means") instead of Catholic morality, as I illustrated above.
So... not really a "debate", even though we do disagree.
I'm fine with you having your opinion, though, and agreeing to disagree, just as long as you express it as such, and don't try to represent it as a valid Catholic opinion.
Hopefully, this clarifies our positions, and settles that it's just a gentlemen's disagreement. Take care, and God bless!
It's Catholic teaching that you cannot commit an evil act (murder) that a good result comes from it (removal of a bad Pope). Catholic teaching is that both the act and result must be morally permissible for the whole thing to be moral. In addition to this (as if it wasn't enough), it is a sin to kill one of God's anointed ones (which means no Papicide), which has it's Biblical basis in 1 Samuel/Kings chapter 24, where David refused to kill King Saul, when he had the chance, even though Saul was a wicked king.
Hopefully, this clarifies Catholic teaching. God bless!
Nobody talking about actually impaling the fucker. That doesn't mean the Cardinals can't gather and convene on ALL the heretical shit this "pope" has said and done to toss him out. I've read works by Canonical Doctors that argue that Bergoglio has recused himself with all he's done so far.