Author Topic: Limbo & Baptism? (Read 16546 times)

CMMM · « **Reply #45 on:** September 05, 2009, 10:02:02 AM »

Only because it was addressed hypothetically.

And I'm not pitting the two against each other. As each decree can be understood in light of tradition, and everything Benedict says can be understood in light of tradition, we have an obligation as Catholics to do so.

You hypocritically pick and choose which decrees are to be understood 'as a child', and for others you explain away as a theologian would.

Quote

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

How would a 'child' understand this quote?

CM · « **Reply #46 on:** September 05, 2009, 03:13:10 PM »

That each successor of St. Peter of St. Peter receives his power from Christ (divine law) and that each Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, forever and ever.

That wasn't so hard.

CM · « **Reply #47 on:** September 05, 2009, 03:17:10 PM »

Do you believe that the word perpetual somehow means that there should ALWAYS be a pope at every moment of time? If that's what you believe, then I can't help you.

Why not? Because of interregnums. To state the following is not heretical:

Pope St. John I was elected on 13 August, 523, after an interregnum of seven days. For that week, the Church was without a pope, but did not cease to exist.

Pope Innocent XI was elected after an interregnum of two months.

Pope Boniface III was elected on 19 February, 607, after an interregnum of 3 days less than a full year.

Pope Innocent IV ascended the papal throne on 25 June, 1243, after an interregnum of 1 year, 7 months, and 15 days. For nearly two years, the Church had no earthly head, but it did not cease to exist.

In 29 Novemeber 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there was no successor to the papal throne until September 1, 1271, when Pope Gregory was finally elected. That means that there was no pope for almost three years. But there was a Church.

Nicholas IV died in 4 April 1292, and his successor, Celestine V was not elected until July 7, 1294, another period of over two years, where the Holy Catholic Church had no pope, but still existed.

Benedict XV revealed himself as a public heretic, innovator of Tradition and enemy of Faith and Church unity in 1914, and the Church has been in a long and bitter interregnum since that time.

CMMM · « **Reply #48 on:** September 05, 2009, 06:09:11 PM »

I believe perpetual means what it says, perpetual meaning continuing forever or indefinitely.

Thus, as the decree plainly states, 'blessed Peter should have perpetual successors', I understand it to mean there will be successors continuing forever.

Additionally, the interregnum is altogether different than the current state that you accuse the church of being in. There is still an active, visible and valid body to function in the popes stead. Under your belief, none exists.

CM · « **Reply #49 on:** September 05, 2009, 08:51:04 PM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

There is still an active, visible and valid body to function in the popes stead. Under your belief, none exists.

Please explain your choice of words, particularly the ones in bold.

Author Topic: Limbo &amp; Baptism? (Read 16546 times)

Author Topic: Limbo & Baptism? (Read 16546 times)