I just don’t know what you mean by it.

We’re going to start it.

Why did he beat his wife?

Roman Catholicism will not survive the apostasy at the end of the world. The entire Roman epistemology hinges on a man made system of hyper centralization that has no resistance to Antichrist infiltration.

The cyclical view is a LDS distinctive, but prophecies do repeat. The Old Testament prophecies frequently have an initial fulfillment, and then a Christological one later. We also have typology, for example, Jesus uses the Exodus event as a proof or the Resurrscgion. Then you look at Church history, and it very frequently mimics the history of Israel and Judah in the Books of Kings. Arianism and Monothelitism aren’t unlike idols and high places.

Point being, the repetition is there, though not necessarily the circularity.

Go woke, go broke.

It converged. Trump still became President and everything happened the same way, except inflation is even higher.

It’s in the New Testament. Everyone should know the Church will one day be forced underground, and it’s every man’s responsibility to be prepared for that in their own way.

I view the current situation in American Lutheranism as a good test run. The Russians had their catacombs under Soviet rule, it’s entirely possible we will soon need the same.

I have one guy in my mind who’s a radical heretic, and I’ve seen him influence people negatively, but I don’t want to start anything with him so I won’t say who he is.

I don’t like to just shit on people, but some degree of orthodoxy is important before listening to someone.

I’m sure there are more good ones than just that person, too. But it is important to know who the spiritually dangerous ones are.

The Fediverse just isn’t a place with many pious or educated Christians.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, who was regarded as a decent conservative by most normies, has extreme liberal presuppositions about the Bible in his books. His formation was in, what, the 1940’s? And he was already saying things that didn’t work their way into popular culture until the 60’s and 70’s.

I can only imagine how radical things have gotten now. We won’t know just how bad it is for quite some time.

You won’t catch me praising low church denominations often, but a lot of them just pick some guy with pastoral talent who’s interested enough in the Bible to teach, and those churches remain much more conservative than the denominations that rely on academic training. I don’t see why we need seminaries at all, frankly.

Help me find my frens #FrenFinder #FrenFinder2

Ecumenism is the heresy of the day and it is all going to snowball into the one world religion. What better figure to head such a religion than an Antipope?

I will make one correction. The leadership situation is actually much worse than that. It’s not the heads of the churches that are at the heart of radical liberalism, it’s the seminaries that trained them. Even a man with the best of intentions is bound to come out corrupted once they’ve been perverted by modern academia for years.

If they’re practicing, advocating traditionalists, they most likely won’t be promoted to bishops. The Pope makes those appointments, and Francis is the one picking the cardinals who will elect his successor.

I’m a Lutheran, I don’t think the Papal system invented by the Hildebrands in the 11th Century is the Church to begin with, but if you’re going to be a Papist, you should at least be a sedevacantist.

The Popes have all been notorious heretics for decades. The bishops are all just as bad, and those who have any respectability are at odds with the “Vicar of Christ.”

It makes more sense to say that Bergoglio is not the Pope, the bishops are not actually bishops, and the Catholic buildings are occupied by an apostate counter-church. You really can’t accept the claims of Vatican I unless you take some iteration of that position, because the Magisterium has objectively led the entire religion into damnable error.

That’s not pee it’s rain and your roof is leaking.

I mean, I’m not letting Rome off the hook by pointing out they’re smart enough to avoid formally pushing heresy.

They support it in every way except verbiage, which the useful idiot tradcaths are more than happy to ignore, as long as they can open their copy of Denzinger and everything looks ok on an abstract piece of paper.

I didn't pay attention to any of that stuff, it seemed gay and juvenile. They're a lot like America First, actually.

The LDS church has it pretty good. I think there was one recent statement that softened their stance on homosexuality. BYU is very theologically liberal, but the structure of the LDS ward actually shields it from the result of bad seminary formation.

Everyone participates in the LDS church, so generally speaking, unless it comes from the top down, one liberal leaning person doesn't spoil the entire group, whereas in traditional parishes, if you get assigned a libtard pastor (more and more of them are libtards) there's a good chance you're screwed.

To my knowledge, it's not explicitly dogmatized, but modern Rome has this infuriating corporate speak where they always say things that can be interpreted a certain way by both conservatives and liberals, so rogue bishops can always push their agenda with enough plausible deniability as to avoid temporal repercussions.