• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yes it is. Catholic dogma dictates that the Pope is the true representative of God and that he functions as the literal mouthpiece of God. Schisms might be true but, according to Catholicism, there can’t be a mistake when it comes to the Pope and what he says when speaking on doctrine. It’s called Papal Infallibility.

    Accordingly, that means any schisms from Catholicism, by definition, aren’t Catholic because they break the promise Jesus made to Peter.

    Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      That doesn’t change the fact that Palmerians consider themselves the one true catholic church and that they consider their members catholic. They would claim their anti-pope is the infallible one, not Pope Francis.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It doesn’t matter what they consider themselves, though. That’s the point. If the Pope is the mouthpiece of god and is infallible, then their sect (and by extension their anti-pope) cannot be Catholics since dogma and doctrine dictate that the actual Pope is infallible and beyond contestation.

        • teft@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          If both churches consider themselves with infallible popes declaring gods will on earth, who is right? Do you see the dilemma? Neither can say that the other sect are true Catholics.

          So if someone claims to be catholic but doesn’t accept Pope Francis that doesn’t make them not a catholic, it just means they don’t think Pope Francis is the legitimate pope. They would consider him an antipope and his statements ex cathedra are therefore fallible since they aren’t really statements ex cathedra in their minds.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            No. You’re wrong. The original Catholic dogma, directly from St. Peter and promised by Jesus, states that the Pope will forever be the mouthpiece of god. To directly contradict that at a point in the future after the founding of the church when the lineage of the church is unbroken is to become, by definition, something other than a Catholic. Otherwise, you’re saying that Jesus lied or that the Pope is wrong, both ideas that go completely against the central tenets of the religion.

            Whether or not both churches consider themselves anything is irrelevant. One side can say that they are the true Catholics if they were the ones to create the belief system, dogma, and tenets. The other side can’t say that the actual Catholics aren’t true Catholics because Catholic belief is defined by the infallibility of the leader of the organization. By direct influence of their god, he is perfect in all matters of dogma, religion, and definition. In order to defy that, you’re defying the god upon which the religion is founded which makes their beliefs heresy and hypocrisy.

            I can’t even believe this is being debated right now, especially like this.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’s not a biblical question. It’s a dogmatic question. Reading the Bible, in part or in its entirety, isn’t going to help answer this question.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      This assumes that Catholic dogma is objectively true, and leans heavily on history being written by the victors.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        No it doesn’t. It leans on Catholic dogma being defined by Catholics. Papal infallibility comes from Jesus’ promise to Peter that whoever leads the Church will always be guided by God. Since it comes directly from Jesus, the figurehead of Catholicism, the only “truth” that needs to be accepted is that Jesus + Pope (Peter) is Catholicism. There’s no question of truth or victory. The very foundation of the idea of Catholicism relies on the idea that the Pope is never wrong on issues of doctrine and dogma.