Has Francis Just Repealed Traditionis Custodes?

For someone to lose their soul they have to 1) be doing something which is considered grave matter, 2) know what they are doing is a mortal sin and 3) give free consent to it. Wittingly choosing to live a slothful life whilst knowing where it can lead is one thing, but being 'confused' into it by faithless pastors is a different issue. It might in some cases ultimately lead to hell but God will not just allow anyone to 'lose their soul' quite that easily. Only God knows each person's actual guilt and confusion means someone is not giving full consent.

Isn't there someone called "the anti-Christ", who does something considered to be a very grave matter (teaching heresy, teaching contrary to constant Church belief, persecuting Catholic tradition), knows that what he is doing is contrary to constant teaching of the Church, but teaches it anyway by word and deed, and willingly consents to the evil, and leading others into the same evil. I think that is a PERFECT description of Francis, and all of his associates and cardinal/bishop appointments. I would not at all be surprised if Francis is, in actuallity the prophecized anti-Christ.

Why does the antichrist have to be Jewish? Why not Buddhist? According to Revelations, the antichrist will be the head of a world-wide religion. Many bigots distrust and dislike Jews. It would be a poor choice either racially or religiously for a one-world religion. Most likely, the antichrist will be some non-Christian "holy man". While the Dalai Lama isn't the antichrist, he serves as a good model for such widespread popularity that crosses traditional religious boundaries.

"According to Revelations, the antichrist will be the head of a world-wide religion. " I took philosophy in college here in the USA even though understanding the course in English was tough at first. But from what I understand from philosophy of Aquinas, and theology, and just from logic, is that the anti-Christ is (by it's very words) is someone who knows Christ, but is against Him, or teaches contrary to teachings of Christ and the Church. This would be Bergoglio, who even renounced the title "Vicar of Christ". Only someone evil, and at core against the Church and Christ would deny this title. His teachings have been against constant Catholic teaching, His actions have been against Catholic tradition and persecuting of it. He has welcomed a pagan idol into St. Peter's Basilica (2019, Pachamamma), and had blessings and incense over it. He has lead the Catholic faith into error by his preaching and writen words and example. The "ANTI-Christ" is supposed to be someone who is a Christian(Catholic), and the head of a world religion (Catholicism Pope) who teaches against Christ and the Church and leads others to same evil. This sounds like a good example of/ is Pope Francis/Bergoglio.

:The Church: is about ready to declare the TLM anathema, @Ultraviolet, but yes, let's rely on them. Meanwhile, we happily have Jesus' words and Canon Law and the Dogma to know ourselves that a man who believes there is no hell, believes the sacraments don't mean anything, believes in homosexual union, honors abortionists, and doesn't believe Christ is God is a heretic.

By your logic, you should stop going to the TLM.

Again, you defend Bergoglio as part of Christs Church, yet you don't realize that Bergoglio is not CHristian. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance. You're following Bergoglio straight to hell.

Obviously what is more important to you isn't Jesus' words, His dogma, or his Church's laws, but Bergoglio. Examine yourself.

On the antichrist, he would be Jewish because the Jews are searching for their Messiah. Secondly, the worldwide religion is already being constructed, via Francis of course. Third, many Jews are already heads of powerful organizations. Jeffrey Sachs who is intimately involved in Vatican economic affairs is Jewish.

Jews are hated by Muslims and right wingers, but they are very influential. Everywhere.

"About ready" :P @Les Crispi No, it isn't. That's the barely concealed wishful thinking of the Novus Ordo modernists. Nothing more. But yes, Catholics do rely on The Church. The Church and the current leadership are not the same.

"Meanwhile, we happily have Jesus' words and Canon Law and the Dogma to know ourselves…"

The Church interprets those for the faithful. They aren't "Sola Scriptura" for Catholics. Again, you betray your Lutheran upbringing.

Errors are not heresy until The Church says they are. You're just repeating the same nonsense you always have, even to the point where I finally had to post copy-pasta to address it under one of your previous aliases.

"By your logic, you should stop going to the TLM."

That isn't my logic. It isn't even your logic. It's a stupid, irrelevant throw-away line right up there with "heeza heretic" for umpteenth time.

"Again, you defend Bergoglio as part of Christs Church, yet you don't realize that Bergoglio is not CHristian. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance."

Skip the Dr. Phil pop-psychology gimmick, Jimmy. It doesn't work on me. First, I acknowledge Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Church. His errors have no bearing on that, nor have you shown he "is not Christian". Some of your ugliness here and in the past is ample reason to question whether you are, regardless of denomination.

"You're following Bergoglio straight to hell."

Still wrong. Recognizing who is the current boss and sharing his errors are not the same. Likewise, following you and your errors won't lead me to Heaven, either.

"Obviously what is more important to you isn't Jesus' words,"

I'm still waiting for you to quote Him where (your words) "Jesus Christ told us how to define heresy."

As I've said elsewhere in the past, these are just meaningless talking point you drop to legitimize your opinion. There's no substance behind them.

His dogma isn't subject to your definitive interpretation. You should have left that Lutheran nonsense behind when you converted and I'm the one who uses Canon Law to contradict the likes of you! :D The Church's "laws" are just an empty word people like you name-drop to legitimize your schismatic mentality. For me it's a science used to contradict your errors.

You know that already. Every time you've tried arguing "his Church's laws" with me, you lose. Protip: Y'all might want to capitalize the "h" in "his Church's laws". :)

"On the antichrist, he would be Jewish because the Jews are searching for their Messiah. "

You're missing my point. The Evil One will be able to choose his champion, the antichrist. Stands to reason. My point is why would he choose a Jew? Jews have a very strong "legalistic" religion which is difficult to 'reinterpret' into its exact opposite. They also have a very strong social tradition, both aren't susceptble to easy manipulation.

Likewise, as you noted, Jews are often hated. In all fairness, many right-wingers don't hate Jews at all. Choosing a Jew or incarnating as a Jew would immediately put the antichrist under suspicion, which is the last thing the head of a future one-world religion would want.

Besides, the Evil One doesn't need the influence of others. He should as "prince of this world" generate all the influence he needs. If anything, a disguise of a simple "holy man" would work to his advantage. When the billionaires throw money at him and the heads of the world governments defer to him, he's a "king-maker" but still immune from the cynicism people can rightly have for a Sachs or a Bezos or a Gates

@Ultraviolet Democracy is anarchy except it defines better who to bribe.

Both are the same at the end...
In anarchy, if the rich want your property, they pay a mob of thugs, they get it.
In democracy, if the rich want your property, they pay a mob of advertisers, lobbyists, they get it.

And... that is why democracy has to be constrained by a republic.

Well... eh... not exactly. @Facts Not Lies Any system of govt. contradicts the absence of one. Even in the first example you gave... that's how medieval feudalism worked. The second one... it depends on what "democracy". Eminent domain means the rich might get your property but they're going to have to pay the market value for it.

I'll ask... how does this tie in with Francis or the antichrist?

@Ultraviolet
I would call that post to this thread a 'brain fart'... sometimes the brain engages gear on the wrong road.

My error for that post here