I did say I was a sedevacantist, so no I didn't miss that Bergoglio is a heretic. I've called him one outright many times on this forum.
rejection of a centralized authority
And therefore rejection of the words of Christ himself, who named a vicar of the church in the form of Peter the Apostle.
As for protecting against bad actors, I'd point you to the present state of Methodism, which actually acts like a democracy and holds a fucking vote on whether or not something is a sin anymore. There is nothing Christian about crass mob rule. I'm fact there's decidedly something satanic about it.
The structure of one enormous ruling body is not outlined in the bible. Peter was a leader, but the existence of the pope is a grand fiction that attempts to usurp the authority of god.
The convenience of separate denominations means that the methodists, for example, have no actual power. You can go to a church a mile away and find sanity, instead of everyone being under a boot. So some methodists are clearly heretics attempting to commit the same mistakes that caused protestantism to exist. Reject them and they have no power, unlike the catholic structure.
I don't aay any one denomination is actually correct, but that rejecting false ruling bodies filled with power seeking clowns is correct.
I'd argue the exact opposite. Churches are corrupted by failing to gatekeep bad actors, something a scattered organization expressly can not do.
The Roman Catholic Church certainly failed to do so as well in the past century, but as a structure is certainly capable of actually doing so. It certainly has in the past to good effect.
On what planet is it easier to gatekeep a larger organization than a smaller one? If a small one gets corrupted it is quite simple to rectify or start a new one. And the consequences of the gathering of power when it is inevitably corrupted are always worse the larger it is. The catholic organization is not even a church, it is a government.
And the last hundred years? Try the last thousand at least - do you even know why the schism happened? Corruption has been the mission statement for the catholic church for centuries. They were quite literally selling sin tickets - "indulgences". Pay the church X and you're pre-forgiven for sins.
The pope has always been a heretic because the office of the pope acting as if it is the will of god and stepping between man and god is heresy.
The planet where we're talking about a whole ass religion. Protestantism has the fatal flaw that they don't gatekeep anything, you are one if you say you are.
That is the flaw of decentralization. Even the Orthodox guys have a pontiff. Protestantism is either totally disorganized or else democracy posing as a religion.
Oh and lastly, indulgences from hundreds of years ago bother you so much but literally voting this very year to declare huge chunks of the Bible invalid is cool? I can't imagine you find that theologically sound.
I did say I was a sedevacantist, so no I didn't miss that Bergoglio is a heretic. I've called him one outright many times on this forum.
And therefore rejection of the words of Christ himself, who named a vicar of the church in the form of Peter the Apostle.
As for protecting against bad actors, I'd point you to the present state of Methodism, which actually acts like a democracy and holds a fucking vote on whether or not something is a sin anymore. There is nothing Christian about crass mob rule. I'm fact there's decidedly something satanic about it.
The structure of one enormous ruling body is not outlined in the bible. Peter was a leader, but the existence of the pope is a grand fiction that attempts to usurp the authority of god.
The convenience of separate denominations means that the methodists, for example, have no actual power. You can go to a church a mile away and find sanity, instead of everyone being under a boot. So some methodists are clearly heretics attempting to commit the same mistakes that caused protestantism to exist. Reject them and they have no power, unlike the catholic structure.
I don't aay any one denomination is actually correct, but that rejecting false ruling bodies filled with power seeking clowns is correct.
I'd argue the exact opposite. Churches are corrupted by failing to gatekeep bad actors, something a scattered organization expressly can not do.
The Roman Catholic Church certainly failed to do so as well in the past century, but as a structure is certainly capable of actually doing so. It certainly has in the past to good effect.
On what planet is it easier to gatekeep a larger organization than a smaller one? If a small one gets corrupted it is quite simple to rectify or start a new one. And the consequences of the gathering of power when it is inevitably corrupted are always worse the larger it is. The catholic organization is not even a church, it is a government.
And the last hundred years? Try the last thousand at least - do you even know why the schism happened? Corruption has been the mission statement for the catholic church for centuries. They were quite literally selling sin tickets - "indulgences". Pay the church X and you're pre-forgiven for sins.
The pope has always been a heretic because the office of the pope acting as if it is the will of god and stepping between man and god is heresy.
The planet where we're talking about a whole ass religion. Protestantism has the fatal flaw that they don't gatekeep anything, you are one if you say you are.
That is the flaw of decentralization. Even the Orthodox guys have a pontiff. Protestantism is either totally disorganized or else democracy posing as a religion.
Oh and lastly, indulgences from hundreds of years ago bother you so much but literally voting this very year to declare huge chunks of the Bible invalid is cool? I can't imagine you find that theologically sound.
So did Peter and Christ ever meet? Remind me.
Unless Christ was a GamerGator with keys to our time machine.