new pope

[Dubious]

It's the heretics who are most likely to create the conditions for Catholicism to maintain a degree of validity going into the future, one in which a medievalistic mind set would find it impossible to survive. It's a process which requires a sociological influx as much as its theological underpinnings can absorb without breaking down. If it ever did succumb due to total secularization as you mention, the effect wouldn't be merely dramatic, but nullifying. The Pope Benedict mentality would have hastened the decline immeasurably.

That’s a bold statement. But how would you back it up? What example of heresy might you refer to? Or are you merely being bold and controversial? (I am sincerely interested to know your view).

If Francis was heretical, through what heresy of his has Catholicism advanced?

Specifically, I don't know and I don't care, having no use for religion, period. But it's not exactly a mystery, especially since Vatican II, that the tendency of the church is toward a more ameliorative, pervasive influx of secularization against the historical rigidity of church doctrine. Of course, there can always appear a pope like Benedict attempting to uphold the status quo but that doesn't negate the general tendency of the Vatican toward a more open-minded progression going forward. It's not even optional. Without such a gradual reformation, the church cannot survive. The people, especially in Europe, are educated, they know how to read and often converse in multiple languages, which is not just a recent event. Compare that and its consequences to the many centuries when the church was most powerful and able to maintain that power due to a mostly illiterate population. It's easier to suborn a mind when it hears only what it's told. That's also how cults are created.

Having said all that, the secularization process in the church is an adjustment process, not an annulment one. It's mysteries abide by becoming more personal instead of strictly mandated making it an act of voluntary acceptance compared to the imposed brainwashing techniques of the Middle Ages. The mysteries remain which keep it alive. Either way, it's a balancing act.

[Age]

I don't think many people take any notice of the pope

Probably not, unless they are Catholic. Most in the US are protestant but Catholicism is maybe a not too distant second (or was last time I checked). I encountered a few people on the Internet who were self-described members of the alt-right and Catholic. They all seemed to have something against Pope Francis, perhaps because they were Americans. Francis seemed to be a patron of the marginalized people of the Earth more so than previous Popes, it seems. Not something that white supremacists in the US seem to be fond of, I guess. \_('_')_/

You too can become the representative of God on earth!

Why do you keep using the words, the representative of God on earth', here?

Obviously no one human being, nor even a majority of human beings, are a so-called, 'representative of God', here on earth nor anywhere else for that matter.

Go and chat with the cardinals, and talk them into it. If the new guy could do it, then you can do it too!

But, no one can be any so-called, 'representative of God'.

Only God, Itself, can, and does, represent It Self, HERE.

You will magically become infallible. Everything that comes out of your mouth, will automatically deemed to be true. You will finally become like me !!!

you sound like you are talking about one, like 'that one' called "muhammed", who some, also foolishly, believe that what it said was also automatically true, and who some even still believe that its words are automatically deemed true.

Why is it that followers of theological institutions automatically believe that the words of those who started these different theologies are automatically deemed to be true?

It is, after all, very simple and very easy to distinguish between what words are actually irrefutably True from those words that are just someone's own personal truth. So, why is it that so many of you human beings, here, automatically deem those words, which are not actually True, to be true?

'The answer', by the way, is very 'freeing', as some will note, and say

By the way, the first thing I would do, if I were you, is to jump on the plane and fly to the Philippines. They will crawl over each other to kiss the ground on which you walk and extensively lick your toes, if they manage to get close enough.

More or less exactly like others would do who are the followers and "believers' of 'those' who started other theologies. i could imagine you bowing down and wanting to kiss the feet and/or lick the ass of "muhammed" if it walked before you. And, please feel absolutely free to Correct me if.what i imagined, here, was in anyway Incorrect.

My first decision as the new representative of God on earth would be to move the Holy See from Rome to Manila. It is better to be God on earth in a place where they actually believe that you are! Seriously, fuck the Italians. They are no good. They don't truly believe! Seriously, I would move to the Philippines instead.

Does anyone, here, really care what the one, here, known as "godelian" would personally do, and/or what "godelian" personally wants others to do to it?

[godelian]

Why do you keep using the words, the representative of God on earth', here?

ChatGPT: Do Catholics consider the Pope to be the representative of God on earth?

Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, meaning he is the representative of Jesus Christ on Earth. This belief is based on the idea that Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter as the leader of his Church (as described in Matthew 16:18–19), and that the Pope is Peter’s successor.

ChatGPT: Do Christians believe that Jesus was God on earth?

Yes, most Christians believe that Jesus was God on Earth. This belief is known as the doctrine of the Incarnation—that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. It’s a central teaching in mainstream Christian denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most forms of Protestantism.

This belief is based on passages like John 1:1 and 1:14:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

So, I did not invent this by myself.

According to Catholic doctrine, as soon as the Pope wins the elections, he becomes the fake representative of God on earth. The Pope also becomes infallible on the eve following his election. Seriously, he knows everything better than you do.

The idea is that there is always a Holy Hominid on earth, as a representative of God himself, always selected from the great apes.

It used to be a holy chimp, until the gorillas disagreed and thought that it was unfair. Why always a chimp? Why not a baboon for a change? It does not even need to be a gorilla, as long as it is not a chimp again!

So, we needed a compromise solution.

According to the truce, the most retarded section of the homo sapiens will keep electing the Universal Holy Monkey until the argument between the chimps and the gorillas will finally have been resolved.

Don't hold your breath, though.

The solution is not just temporary. With their divide-and-conquer policies, the Catholics make sure that the great apes will never get along again. Ever!

[accelafine]

Why do you keep using the words, the representative of God on earth', here?

ChatGPT: Do Catholics consider the Pope to be the representative of God on earth?

Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, meaning he is the representative of Jesus Christ on Earth. This belief is based on the idea that Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter as the leader of his Church (as described in Matthew 16:18–19), and that the Pope is Peter’s successor.

ChatGPT: Do Christians believe that Jesus was God on earth?

Yes, most Christians believe that Jesus was God on Earth. This belief is known as the doctrine of the Incarnation—that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. It’s a central teaching in mainstream Christian denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most forms of Protestantism.

This belief is based on passages like John 1:1 and 1:14:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

So, I did not invent this by myself.

According to Catholic doctrine, as soon as the Pope wins the elections, he becomes the fake representative of God on earth. The Pope also becomes infallible on the eve following his election. Seriously, he knows everything better than you do.

The idea is that there is always a Holy Hominid on earth, as a representative of God himself, always selected from the great apes.

It used to be a holy chimp, until the gorillas disagreed and thought that it was unfair. Why always a chimp? Why not a baboon for a change? It does not even need to be a gorilla, as long as it is not a chimp again!

So, we needed a compromise solution.

According to the truce, the most retarded section of the homo sapiens will keep electing the Universal Holy Monkey until the argument between the chimps and the gorillas will finally have been resolved.

Don't hold your breath, though.

The solution is not just temporary. With their divide-and-conquer policies, the Catholics make sure that the great apes will never get along again. Ever!

I don't know any catholics who believe that. What do muslims believe?

[Age]

Why do you keep using the words, the representative of God on earth', here?

ChatGPT: Do Catholics consider the Pope to be the representative of God on earth?

Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, meaning he is the representative of Jesus Christ on Earth. This belief is based on the idea that Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter as the leader of his Church (as described in Matthew 16:18–19), and that the Pope is Peter’s successor.

ChatGPT: Do Christians believe that Jesus was God on earth?

Yes, most Christians believe that Jesus was God on Earth. This belief is known as the doctrine of the Incarnation—that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. It’s a central teaching in mainstream Christian denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most forms of Protestantism.

This belief is based on passages like John 1:1 and 1:14:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

So, I did not invent this by myself.

1. Were you under some sort of belief or illusion that I thought you invented 'this' "yourself'?

If no, then why did you just say and write what you just did, here?

2. So, what is the, exact, reason you keep using the words, 'the representative of God on earth', here?

Is it because of what 'artificial intelligence' tells you?

Is it because some people might think or believe some thing?

Is it because some Wrongly labelled and called human beings believe, or might believe, a particular thing? Or,

Is it for some other reason?

And, if it is the last one, then what is 'that REASON' you keep using 'the representative of God on earth' words here, exactly?

3. Do you even believe that there even be 'a representative of God, here, on earth'?

If no, then why do you keep using those words?

According to Catholic doctrine, as soon as the Pope wins the elections, he becomes the fake representative of God on earth.

Are you sure that 'this' is according to so-called 'catholic doctrine'?

The Pope also becomes infallible on the eve following his election.

The word 'eve' is in reference to 'preceding', and not to 'proceeding', correct?

Also, why do you 'now' claim that the "pope", itself, becomes infallible?

Is there a human being, on earth, that believe or claims 'the same' are you are, here?

If yes, then who are 'they', supposedly and exactly?

Seriously, he knows everything better than you do.

Well that is not really any thing new, nor even any thing surprising, at all.

The idea is that there is always a Holy Hominid on earth, as a representative of God himself, always selected from the great apes.

But, besides you, who else has 'this idea'?

And, why do you even have 'this idea'? Where did you get it from? What do you keep it for, and why keep sharing it, here, exactly?

Also, is this why "muslims" worship "mohammed"? Do they believe there is always a so-called 'holy hominid', on earth, as a representative, or messenger, of God, Itself?

It used to be a holy chimp, until the gorillas disagreed and thought that it was unfair. Why always a chimp? Why not a baboon for a change? It does not even need to be a gorilla, as long as it is not a chimp again![/quote]

Are you aware of what you are axtually saying and writing, here, 'now'?

So, we needed a compromise solution.

Who and/or what is the 'we' word, here, referring to, exactly?

According to the truce, the most retarded section of the homo sapiens will keep electing the Universal Holy Monkey until the argument between the chimps and the gorillas will finally have been resolved.

If you say so, then okay?

So, who is the so-called 'universal holiest monkey', exactly?

"mohammed"
"pope"
"dalai lama"
"jesus" Or,

Another one of you 'monkeys'?
[/quote]
Don't hold your breath, though.

The solution is not just temporary. With their divide-and-conquer policies, the Catholics make sure that the great apes will never get along again. Ever!
[/quote]

Do 'you' get along with the so-called "west", "christians", and/or others, always?

If no, then with 'that divide-and-conquer attitude', then the actual and exact 'solution' to everlasting peace and happiness, will remain a complete and utter mystery, to 'you'.

[godelian]

I don't know any catholics who believe that.

The vast majority of Catholics are not aware of what exactly Catholic doctrine insists on. For them, religion is just a few rituals and ceremonies, such as marriage, funerals, and occasionally a baptism, if even.

Going to church on Sunday in order to undergo indoctrinating speeches, is not something that the average Catholic still wants to do.

He doesn't know, and he doesn't even want to know what Catholic doctrine is about. Furthermore, that is also what the clergy thinks about it. The flock of Catholic sheep should not deal with complicated ideas, such as what exactly Catholicism is.

So, indeed, the average Catholic has no idea of what Catholic doctrine says. Welcome to the real world!

What do muslims believe?

Even when the discussion is about Catholic doctrine, you still want to talk about Islam instead.

In some sense, you find Islam much more interesting than I do.

I tend to switch doctrine like I change underwear. I do not "identify" with any particular doctrine. I just use it when it suits me. So, I find a doctrine useful or not useful.

If you really want to insist on making me identify with a particular doctrine -- which I don't -- I would probably pick Peano Arithmetic (PA). But then again, I don't identify with PA either. I just use it.

You see, some people even identify with a programming language, such as in "I am a C++ programmer". I would only ever be a user of that thing. Seriously, why identify with something that you just use? I use a lot of stuff. Should I also identify as a "forker" because I often use a fork when I eat?

Furthermore, I am not the elected representative of the Islamic view on things. In fact, such person does not even exist. If someone ever tried to speak for the whole of Islam, lots of other people would jump into fray to explicitly deny him that right.

Islamic beliefs are the long-term deductive closure around the
core documentation of Islam, i.e. the Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah.

So, it is a decentralized abstraction that gradually emerges around its core abstractions. There is not a single person who can decide what that should be. If someone tried to do that, I would reject that person and his views. I really don't need a new dictator who imposes his misguided interpretation onto everyone else.

If there really were a centralized authority that decides on authentic interpretation in Islam, I would not even be willing to use Islam. That central authoritative person would try to make me buy one of their memecoins!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Specifically, I don't know and I don't care, having no use for religion, period. But it's not exactly a mystery, especially since Vatican II, that the tendency of the church is toward a more ameliorative, pervasive influx of secularization against the historical rigidity of church doctrine. Of course, there can always appear a pope like Benedict attempting to uphold the status quo but that doesn't negate the general tendency of the Vatican toward a more open-minded progression going forward. It's not even optional. Without such a gradual reformation, the church cannot survive. The people, especially in Europe, are educated, they know how to read and often converse in multiple languages, which is not just a recent event. Compare that and its consequences to the many centuries when the church was most powerful and able to maintain that power due to a mostly illiterate population. It's easier to suborn a mind when it hears only what it's told. That's also how cults are created.

Having said all that, the secularization process in the church is an adjustment process, not an annulment one. It's mysteries abide by becoming more personal instead of strictly mandated making it an act of voluntary acceptance compared to the imposed brainwashing techniques of the Middle Ages. The mysteries remain which keep it alive. Either way, it's a balancing act.

But it's not exactly a mystery, especially since Vatican II, that the tendency of the church is toward a more ameliorative, pervasive influx of secularization against the historical rigidity of church doctrine.

This is true. Because I have studied the issue (in essence it can be labeled “the destruction of the Catholic Christian tradition”) I also know that the process began earlier (than Vatican ll).

And while the result is increased secularism the “real reasons” for the destruction have to do with the collapse of the metaphysical predicates that support the System. It is as I said (I think it a fair statement): If it cannot any longer be believed that God spoke to the prophets saying specific things, clarifying specific duties (really defining a relationship to life, to man, the the world, and to being both incarnate and disincarnate) then — obviously — the superstructure will be modified, and the structures built around it become irrelevant.

The larger issue here, as I am sure you know, is the ruthless advance of a new system of organizing perception and understanding of “what is”: i.e. of what is real and what is not. On numerous threads there is a fellow who I will not name who is I think the Emissary of that new scientific-scientistic view-point. It actually becomes, it seems to me, starkly evident: that pole is absolutist, devouring, all-informative, totalizing.

As you have noticed (it is a view you hold in tremendous contempt and I say this not to provoke) I am interested in (involved with, committed to) the restoration of metaphysical grounding, not the destruction of it. Whereas — correct me if I am wrong — you view metaphysics as created epiphenomena. You recognize metaphysics but as human creations — tools perhaps or art-pieces. My view is that it functions in an opposite direction: the metaphysical is the constant, man’s life the mutable substance.

And obviously you will gather that in this sense I definitely believe that “God speaks to man”. And therefore, I cannot dismiss or put to the side the principle metaphysical depository of such “communication” — the tangible, historical Church. Though I am as uncomfortable as many others with so much of its exterior structures and as a Modern find it very hard to fit myself back into them.

Without such a gradual reformation, the church cannot survive.

My view is completely the opposite: the foundations need to be rediscovered and strengthened, and then the tradition (and the Entity) will survive. But it cannot survive unless a (structured) metaphysics is re-empowered. Given validity and life. Directive power, in essence.

[Belinda]

Alexis, do you endorse the belief in a supernatural entity, or entities plural if you include angels, cherubim, seraphim and so forth, do you endorse supernaturalism for political reasons, or because you enjoy the myth and want it to be true?

Maybe you don't personally believe God is a supernatural substance, but you do believe that it's necessary for peace and prosperity for there to be a supernatural Authority and for people to trust this Authority. So far, so good, but how can that Authority affect Trump and Vance and whole Power-Is-Right caboodle which is gaining strength all over the world? How could Power-Is-Right be persuaded to yield a supernatural Authority?

It seems to me that post-enlightenment reason has a better chance to do so, beginning with the economists.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's mysteries abide by becoming more personal instead of strictly mandated making it an act of voluntary acceptance compared to the imposed brainwashing techniques of the Middle Ages. The mysteries remain which keep it alive.

Again, I refer to Ortega y Gasset. The “average man of today” is not interested in nor capable of voluntary assent to, say, very difficult and demanding principles of that metaphysical order. Far better — far easier — to drift in mutabilities. To never submit to demanding restraints.

So, at least on one hand, the relaxation of the former strict norms (as indeed they are) has come about by Mass Man’s ascent to positions of authority and from that position allowing his softer desires to be implemented.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, do you endorse the belief in a supernatural entity, or entities plural if you include angels, cherubim, seraphim and so forth, do you endorse supernaturalism for political reasons, or because you enjoy the myth and want it to be true?

I tend to see those things through a Jungian lens.

Overall, yes, I do believe in supernatural entity. Life, creation, manifestation: these are “divine” essentially.

do you endorse supernaturalism for political reasons

An interesting question. Europe, without metaphysical recovery, will not survive. So yes, there is a political side.

But the body-politic is really a conglomerate thing.

[Belinda]

Alexis, do you endorse the belief in a supernatural entity, or entities plural if you include angels, cherubim, seraphim and so forth, do you endorse supernaturalism for political reasons, or because you enjoy the myth and want it to be true?

I tend to see those things through a Jungian lens.

Overall, yes, I do believe in supernatural entity. Life, creation, manifestation: these are “divine” essentially.

do you endorse supernaturalism for political reasons

An interesting question. Europe, without metaphysical recovery, will not survive. So yes, there is a political side.


But the body-politic is really a conglomerate thing.

You may see these things (seraphim, God, angels and so on) through a Jungian lens but medieval people believed in them literally and hierarchically, and their ontology was reflected in political structure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You may see these things (seraphim, God, angels and so on) through a Jungian lens but medieval people believed in them literally and hierarchically, and their ontology was reflected in political structure.

The view of life (existence, manifestation) is always in flux. And yes, an Old Picture of Reality is just that: a picture, a representation.

It is also true that from the 17th century in a progressive manner the “View” of the world has tremendously altered. All of this I understand and those familiar with intellectual history also understand it.

But it seems to me that the former “picture” contained meaning, sense, and value that the modern picture (embodied in a notable contributor here whose view are ultra-reductionist and totalizing) cannot contain, protect or build on.

The modern view acts like an acid and melts everything.

Like all of us here, I exist in the same post-metaphysical world. Really, this is what your “problem” is Belinda. It is the “old” world, the old view, that produced “the Church”. You know enough to question and to reject those foundational views (certainties) in favor of the modern system.

And :::poof::: all the creations (embodiments) simply vanish into thin air. You are in this sense one more who “walks amid the ruins”.

However, the metaphysics are as valid as they ever were if the principles are successfully extracted and understood.

[godelian]

2. So, what is the, exact, reason you keep using the words, 'the representative of God on earth', here?

I firmly believe that the Pope is the fake representative of God on earth, just like myself. I am also a fake representative of God on earth. That is why I like the Pope so much. I can very much relate to him. He is just better at the same job than I am. You see, I am also infallible, but nobody wants to believe it when I say that. When the Pope says that, however, everybody falls in line. That is the difference between the Pope and me. I like the Pope a lot! I wish I could be just like him!

[Belinda]

You may see these things (seraphim, God, angels and so on) through a Jungian lens but medieval people believed in them literally and hierarchically, and their ontology was reflected in political structure.

The view of life (existence, manifestation) is always in flux. And yes, an Old Picture of Reality is just that: a picture, a representation.

It is also true that from the 17th century in a progressive manner the “View” of the world has tremendously altered. All of this I understand and those familiar with intellectual history also understand it.

But it seems to me that the former “picture” contained meaning, sense, and value that the modern picture (embodied in a notable contributor here whose view are ultra-reductionist and totalizing) cannot contain, protect or build on.

The modern view acts like an acid and melts everything.

Like all of us here, I exist in the same post-metaphysical world. Really, this is what your “problem” is Belinda. It is the “old” world, the old view, that produced “the Church”. You know enough to question and to reject those foundational views (certainties) in favor of the modern system.

And :::poof::: all the creations (embodiments) simply vanish into thin air. You are in this sense one more who “walks amid the ruins”.

However, the metaphysics are as valid as they ever were if the principles are successfully extracted and understood.

[henry quirk]

However, the metaphysics are as valid as they ever were if the principles are successfully extracted and understood.

What are those principles, AJ?