The gates of Hell have prevailed?

No, because Christ promised they wouldn't. A crisis does not mean the gates of hell have prevailed.

The gates of Hell have prevailed?

Nope, they have only come spectacularly close to prevailing.

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Augustinian

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Nishant2011

Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.

You mean you accept Vatican II?

Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism  part, Dimond Sedes excluded.

To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.

Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall?  You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion.  They're sectarians.

The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...

To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.

The gates of Hell have prevailed?

According to your position, they have.

What position is that?

Nishant, you have to understand my point, I am not sure you do:

I am not a Jansenist.

I do not argue like one, for I accept the authority of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the church, and the Extraordinary magisterial teaching of the Church. I do not deny the last 5 popes have been heretics, but I do not claim others have been.

I do not claim any saints are formal heretics.

What you seem to have a problem with is clearly distinguishing between the teachings of theologians, and the magisterial teaching of the church.

The ordinary UNIVERSAL magisterium is exactly that: UNIVERSAL. It is not limited to time or place. The unanimous consent of the Fathers, the Unanimous teaching of the Bishops in union with Rome, and the Unanimous teaching of theologians that a truth is revealed by God all constitute part of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium.

However, BOD is not taught by the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium, because it is not UNIVERSALLY taught.

This is an easily verifiable fact. There are saints who plainly taught against it, theologians who criticized saints for adhering to it, and the Unanimous consensus of the Fathers of the church is AGAINST it.

So, by DEFINITION it cannot be a part of the church's official teaching. That is the bottom line.

Also, you seem to be evading something I keep bringing up, namely the DOGMATIC letter of Pope St. Leo to Flavian.

Let me remind you what other Popes have said about that letter:

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed
Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the
text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive
it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”

Now, Let's see what this says, in context.

"Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood; and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot. Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin; and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony—Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the catholic church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity."

So Hang on, in this DOGMATIC LETTER, Pope St. Leo TEACHES that the Redemptive Power of Christ's blood, without which we cannot be saved, the sanctifying power of the spirit, which cleanses us, and the sacrament of water baptism: are one. And not only are they one, they are INDIVISIBLE. You cannot have the sanctification of the spirit without the water of baptism.

That should end it right there.

Also, the letter of excommunication for Fr. Feeney is only for his disobedience, it has nothing to do with doctrine.

The other letter you are referring to is a letter from one bishop to another, and was not even registered in the acts of the apostolic see. It is therefore not an official docuмent of the church's magisterium, because it is not an official "act" of the church.

Nadie, no, I accept the letter. The letter lays down that not any kind of desire is sufficient but only one that is enlightened by faith and animated by charity.

It doesn't specify in what such faith consists of at a minimum, and there I follow the Doctors, St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus, and in my understanding, John 17:3. That is, true knowledge of God, the Trinity and Incarnation, in short.

You are quoting the letter as a defense of your beliefs in your debate with Gregory I, but you disagree with the letter on the most crucial point. This is called rationalizing.

But the real difference between you and I seems to be that I believe that God will directly and internally enlighten such a man as Pope Pius IX described without need of a missionary or priest. This is " the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".

You are following St. Thomas on this point of "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man". However, Pope Pius IX did not teach your take on "divine light and grace". That part is just your personal interpretation.

Putting 2 + 2 together, you are saying that "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man", teaching him what needs to be believed as a minimum, which is the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation.

Now I ask you, if God can  "directly and internally enlighten such a man" to those two complicated beliefs, how come He can't just enlighten the person to simply get baptized? St. Thomas also taught in the same place as you get your "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man", that God would send an angel or a missionary, although anyone can baptize.

But if Pope Pius IX had meant to say, the pagan would receive water baptism, he'd have said so.

and if he would have wanted to say that the person would be saved, he would have said so, and how that would be accomplished. He did not say, AND that's why you can't use this unclear, fallible quote.

Remember, the Pope said this man was invincibly ignorant of "our most holy religion", which means in his case water baptism would have been a true physical or moral impossibility. It is only in such cases that this applies.

That's your own take again. Water baptism which anyone can do and takes like 10 seconds, is to God "a true physical or moral impossibility", but teaching the person the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation is not? Your theory make no sense.

Once again, the 1949 Letter was not an act of the apostolic see, it was not ever officially notarized and filed as such, and as such it has no authority.

The Excommunication is totally valid. However, it is for grave disobedience, not doctrine, so it proves nadda.

Gregory, yes we do disagree, but it's not quite like you make it out. Particularly on the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. The real question is how do we know what belongs there?

Whatever the Church teaches belongs to the deposit of faith, and that is non-negotiable. In terms of the ordinary universal magisterium, we know this for sure:

1. The unanimous consent of the Fathers is non-negotiable; otherwise you would jettison the very notion of tradition. This is what Pope Pius IX professed was the Church of Rome's profession of Faith:

"Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace. Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers."

-Vatican I, Profession of Faith.

"Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers."

-Vatican I, on Revelation.

Clearly, Holy Mother Church's Doctrinal formulations and interpretation of scripture is SHAPED by the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Clearly the Pope is bound to tradition as EXPLICATED by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Therefore, the Universal and ordinary magisterium can never run counter to this.

2. The Popes teach clearly that we are to believe what is the UNIVERSAL consensus of theologians on REVEALED truth. In other words, All the theologians of the 19th century teaching BOD doesn't make it true. It must be the UNIVERSAL consensus; i.e. in time. AND it must be taught AS REVEALED BY GOD. Not just a common opinion.

3. The ordinary universal teaching of bishops in union with Rome. Again, Unanimity, universality and teaching to be REVEALED.

We do not know what constitutes this, as Cardinal Manning said, by scrutinizing the docuмents of antiquity. Not at all. That is rationalistic, as he said.

Debatable. As I have demonstrated, there are essential elements which must not be abandoned when formulating church teaching.

Cardinal Manning is at odds with the Vatican council then, which declares that the church is subject to the understanding of the unanimous consent of the Fathers. That is, TRADITION.

What is your response to what I cited from Pope Pius XII about this? He lays down how we know it, namely that the Pope teaches it an Encyclical to the universal Church, as he said "For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"

My response is where is the Encyclical TEACHING BOD as a truth revealed by God? It would take more than just one, or else it could be construed as a theological novelty. And, as I said, the Letter of one Bishop to another can say whatever it wants, but UNTIL it is registered as an ACT of the apostolic see, it does not constitute such an act. This is the reason Fr. Feeney rejected it, because it is not official, and therefore not binding. This is completely providential, or the church would reject the first 1000 years of her tradition and the most illustrious of the Fathers.

If a Pope a hundred years ago had laid down the teaching in his ordinary and universal Magisterium of say, the Assumption, it would be forbidden to claim that this doctrine was not found in the early Church or the Fathers and revelation.

I agree. WHERE, Oh WHERE is BOD though??? It has no origin except in the minds of the few.

This doesn't mean the doctrine can't be separately shown from the Fathers if necessary, just that it should not be necessary for Catholics. It's the same here.

Well, any revealed doctrine would be revealed ONLY if it were a morally unanimous teaching of the Fathers. BOD is not. Remember, revelation is APOSTOLIC, so it would of necessity HAVE to have been passed down through the writings of the fathers.

OR you admit the church can invent novelties.

As for the letter from Pope St.Leo, I already did reply. It's one thing to disagree, another to say I am "evading" your response.

"But this doesn't follow. The point of the letter is to lay out that water baptism has supernatural efficacy, and works ex opere operato, by the power of Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit. The letter explains why baptism is efficacious, and does not in any way rule out an extraordinary form of the sacrament which happens without the matter (i.e. water)

For one, the Blood of Christ is in a way present in all the sacraments. Take the most common, it is present by concomitance under the form of bread (which is the matter) in the Holy Eucharist, and inseparably with the body. But one can still receive Holy Communion in an extraordinary way through desire, a spiritual communion as it is called, and in this way, the statement "Except a man eat My flesh and drink My blood, he cannot have life in him" is fulfilled through desire, not under the species of the sacrament. "

Where did you get this answer from? It is a clear denial of the teaching of a dogmatic letter:

THe redeeming blood of Christ, the sanctifying power of the spirit, and the water of baptism are inseperable, and INDIVISIBLE. That word INDIVISIBLE is key.

BOD DIVIDES water from the blood and the spirit. That's a fact.

Finally, regarding the letter, I don't need to redo what has already been done for me by the Jansenist website I mentioned for its own purposes, though.

Quote:
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Already addressed.

Is Cushingism Catholic? I would say not.