well, sad I rcently picked up 2 ignores, but not feeling bad, as you now have 15!!!! so, you keep posting in hopes someone will look, but as we have few active posters, likely no one is....

for record, I did not look at your post material, either....

Thank you for the link.  I went to an orthodox mass at a monastery and it was amazingly beautiful.  

Classicom- are you thinking of joining the Orthodox church?

Within about the first 2 minutes of the audio, Johnson's rusjournal.com is referenced.  I took a look at that website and found on the main page they apparently advocate socialism/communism!

Then I looked at Johnson's articles on that site.  He has one titled "The Church Fathers Against Popery." The first sentence of that article is "Roman Catholicism is a false religion," then immediately proceeds to attack the "structure" of the Church and the concept of the Papacy.

I don't know how familiar you are with Classiccom, Leisa, but Classiccom has repeatedly asserted non-Catholic seemingly protestant positions (i.e., that we should not pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary, explicitly argues that there hasn't been a valid Pope in nearly a century and half, and takes issue with Popes back to the 12th or 13th century).  I have pointed out that about 5 or 6 positions of Classiccom on major points are more akin to those of the heretical, protestant, anti-Catholic publisher, Jack Chick, than Catholicism.  This source of the audio posted by Classiccom is par for him, as he has previously used sources such as the heretic Luther and even a travel guide website (lol) regarding the Inquisitions with anti-Catholic bias!

The Vatican Council in 1870 refers to the pope as "the Supreme Ruler of the World".

Sect. 239. --The nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

In the present section we shall point out more precisely the nature of the Primacy, the existence of which has already been abundantly proved. To understand this, we must bear in mind the threefold power exercised by our Lord, and transmitted by Him to His Church (supra, p. 288).

I. As regards Order, the Roman Pontiff has all the powers, and no more than the powers, of a bishop. If the newly elected Pope is not already a bishop, he must first be consecrated before being crowned. Nevertheless, before consecration, he is really and truly the Pope, Supreme Head of the Church, able to decree, rule, name or depose bishops, and exercise every duty of pontifical jurisdiction (to be presently referred to); but he cannot ordain or consecrate till he has himself received the imposition of hands from other bishops, inferior to himself, and holding under and from him their sees and jurisdiction.1

1 The ceremony of consecration sometimes takes place quite apart from the coronation (as in Clement XIV.'s case), sometimes in connection with it, either before (Gregory XVI.'s case) or during the Papal Mass. )

II. In the matter of jurisdiction the position of the Roman Pontiff is widely different from that of ordinary bishops, archbishops, or patriarchs. Their jurisdiction is dependent and limited: his is supreme and universal. To him alone the whole of Christ's flock is entrusted; he holds the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing; and these functions come to him not from below, but from above by succession to St. Peter, whom Christ Himself directly appointed. "The Roman Pontiff." says the Council of Florence,” is the head of the whole Church, Father and Doctor of all Christians: to him [in the person of] blessed Peter was given full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church, as also (qnemadmodum etiairi) is contained in the acts of Ecuмenical Councils and in the holy canons." And the Vatican Council: "If any shall say that the Roman Pontiff hath the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread through the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part (potiores partes) and not all the fulness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema" (sess. iv. ch. 3). This latter Council takes care to note that the Primacy of the Pope in no way derogates from” the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles,'1

1 Council of Trent, sess. xxiii. ch. 4

feed and govern each his own flock as true pastors." Nay, rather that the authority is asserted and protected by the Primacy, according to the words of St. Gregory the Great, "My honour is the honour of the whole Church: my honour is the firm strength of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to each and all is not withheld" (Ep, ad Eulog. Alexandrin., lib. viii. ep. 30).2

2 St. Gregory, while rejecting the title of "universal bishop," is careful to point out that he does so because the title would imply that there was only one real bishop, and that all the so-called bishops were merely the vicars of this one. But though not the sole bishop, he undoubtedly claims to be supreme over all the others, who are really and truly bishops of their respective sees. "As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Holy See? This is constantly owned by the most pious emperor, and by our brother the bishop of that city" (lib. ix. ep. 12). "Every one familiar with the Gospel is aware that by the word of the Lord the care of the whole Church was entrusted to Peter. . . . Behold, the care and the primacy (principatus) of the whole Church is entrusted to him, and yet he is not styled the universal Apostle" (lib. v. ep. 20). See Franzelin, De Eccl., p. 175 sqq.; Palmieri, De Rom. Font., p. 446 sqq.

III. Just as his jurisdiction is supreme, so is the Pope's teaching authority infallible. It will not be necessary, after what has been said in this chapter and vol. i. §30, §31, to develop at any length the proof of this point. As St. Peter is the Rock of the Church, his faith must be the foundation of the Church's faith: the gates of hell shall not prevail against her faith, because it is founded on his faith; he has the supreme power of binding and loosing, in which is especially contained supreme teaching authority; Christ's prayer that Peter's faith might not fail, and the duty imposed of confirming the brethren, show that the faith of the brethren was to depend upon Peter's faith; the whole of Christ's flock is entrusted to his care, to be fed by him with the genuine word of doctrine. And, as we have seen, the promises made to Peter and the powers conferred upon him apply equally to his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438), and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas (5l9) thus defines Papal Infallibility: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra --that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church-- by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves (ex sese), and not from the consent of the Church" (sess. iv. ch. 4).

Two main objections are brought against this doctrine --one negative and one positive --viz.: (1) that it was not recognized or exercised in the early ages of the Church; and (2) that certain Popes have actually erred.

(a) In answer to the first of these objections, we may refer to the passages of the Fathers already quoted, and to the frequent appeals to Rome as early as the second century.1

1 "Le centre d'une future orthodoxie catholique etait evidemment la (< Rome). Sous Antonin (138-161) le germe de la papaute existe bien caracterise” (Renan, Rome et le Christianisme, p. 153). "L'esprit qui, en 1870, fera proclamer l'infaillibilite du pape, se reconnait des la fin du II siecle, a des signes deja reconnaissables. L'ecrit dont fit partie le fragment latin connu sous le nom de Canon de Muratori, ecrit a Rome vers 180, nous montre deja Rome reglant le canon des Eglises, donnant pour base a la catholicite la passion de Pierre, repoussant egalement le montanisme et le gallicanisme” (ibid., p. 172).

Moreover, we may observe, with Cardinal Newman: "It is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. And, in like manner, it was natural for Christians to direct their course in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating and, as it were, endemic tradition, while it was fresh and strong; but in proportion as it languished, or was broken in particular places, did it become necessary to fall back upon its special homes, first the Apostolic Sees, and then the See of St. Peter. Moreover, an international bond and common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of the Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecuмenical Councils, all began to form as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when the Empire fell" (Newman, Development, p. 151, 6th ed.).

(b) As regards the Popes who are said to have erred, it may be answered generally that any such erroneous teaching is not ex cathedra; that is to say, it does not fulfil the conditions required by the Vatican definition (see 31). Thus, the conduct of Liberius in purchasing his return from exile by condemning Athanasius and subscribing a semi-Arian creed, cannot be urged against infallibility. He did not "define any doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church: "what he did he did under compulsion, and as soon as he was free to speak he confirmed the orthodox Council of Alexandria. As St. Athanasius himself says, "Liberius, being exiled, later on, after a period of two years gave way (Greek), and in fear of the death with which he was threatened, subscribed. But even this shows their violence, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his decision for Athanasius when his will was free. For things done through torments contrary to the original judgment these are not acts of will on the part of those who have been put to fear, but of those who inflict the torture" (Epist. ad Monach. et Hist. Arian., 41). See Card. Newman, Arians, pp. 314, 334; Catholic Dictionary, LlBERIUS; Palmieri, De Rom. Pont. p. 637.1

1 As Peter Ballerini briefly puts it: "Liberii lapsus non certus, nee si certus, voluntarius, nec in definitione Fidei” (De Vi et Ralione Primatus, cap. xv. sec. 13, n. 39.

The condemnation of Pope Honorius (625-638) by the Sixth General Council (Third Constantinople, 680), and the confirmatory letter of Leo II anathematizing "Honorius, who did not endeavour to sanctify this Apostolic Church by teaching of Apostolic tradition, but permitted the spotless one to be defiled by unholy betrayal," certainly present some difficulty. We cannot here discuss the question at any length; we must content ourselves with stating what would seem to be the best answer. First, then, the teaching of Honorius was not erroneous. What he held was that there were not two contrary wills in Christ: Our Lord's action was morally one. St. Maximus, the most determined opponent of Monothelitism, regards him and his expressions as perfectly orthodox. Why, then, was he condemned? Because this doctrine served as a cloak to the Monothelite heresy, especially as he declared that it was foolish to speak of one operation or two operations, and that it was better to leave such subtleties to the grammarians. Leo II., at any rate, condemned him only in this sense. "The crafty Byzantine, Sergius, put the unsuspecting Pope (Honorius) on a false scent, and elicited from him a letter which he was enabled to misuse for his own purpose, and indeed in favour of a heresy advocated by himself, but then totally unknown to the pontiff. These expectations were crowned with success. The expressions of Honorius, as could not fail to happen, were set up by the Greeks in connection with the question then so warmly agitated; and so, as the Byzantines (at the Council of Constantinople) required, to whom the condemnation of so many of their patriarchs was excessively irksome and displeasing, Honorius likewise was condemned" (Hergenrother, Anti-Janus, Eng. trans., p. 80. See supra, p. 83; Franzelin, De Verbo Incarn., p. 396 sqq.; Palmieri, De Rom. Pont., p. 655 sqq.).

On the Primacy of the Pope see Palmieri, op. cit., 319 sqq.; Billot, De Eccl., 586 sqq.; Atzberger, op. cit., sect. 343; Turmel, op. cit., p. 228 sqq.; Histoire du Dogme de la Papaute.

Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol 1, Tanquerey, pgs 128-131:

III. The Infallibility of Peter and of the Roman Pontiffs

221 Thesis : When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, he possesses infallibility in defining a doctrine of faith and of morals, so that his definitions of themselves, not from the agreement of the Church, cannot be reformed or changed.

This thesis is historically certain ; it is theologically de fide.

The Protestants and the schismatic Orientals deny the first part of this thesis; the Gallicans deny the second part.

The Catholic teaching is laid down by the Vatican Council in these words : “We define that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”

222  A.  Explanation of Thesis.

I. We are concerned with infallibility in teaching (refer to section 199), not with impeccability.

2. The conditions, all of which must be present at the same time in order that the Pontiff's judgement may be infallible are :

a. The Roman Pontiff may not be speaking as a private doctor, nor as bishop of the city of Rome, nor as a prince of state, but as the Pastor and Doctor of the universal Church according to his supreme authority;

b. The Roman Pontiff should be teaching a truth of faith or of morals (refer to section 250 and following);

c. The Roman Pontiff must be defining, that is, he must be determining with finality which doctrine must be held with internal faith;

d. The definition must bind the universal Church.

3. The cause of infallibility, namely, the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is stated.

4. The subject of infallibility is mentioned, the Roman Pontiff, whose definitions are irreformable of themselves, independently of the judgment of Bishops and of the consent of the entire Church.

223  B.  Proof of Thesis.

I. Proof from Scripture.

a. The text previously quoted : “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Peter and his successors are established by Christ as the foundation upon which the Church would be built and from which it would be strengthened.

But unless the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra, he is not the foundation on which the Church is made firm. Therefore.

b. The text containing Christ's prayer for Peter : “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren”. Here Christ is speaking to Peter alone (as is evident form the context) and he is praying for Peter alone; for him He is asking indefectibility in faith, “ that thy faith fail not ”, in order that he may be able to confirm or strengthen the faith of his brethren. Christ's prayer is effectual; therefore, He obtained from God the special assistance by which Peter's faith would remain constant and unshaken.

c. The text referring to the power of feeding the whole flock. From these words Peter and his successors received from Christ the duty of feeding the entire flock with the word of truth, so that all are bound to obey this teaching. But this position cannot be admitted unless the teaching is infallible.

224  2.  Proof from Tradition.

a. In the first four centuries the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was handed down implicitly only. Correct doctrine was this : the Roman Church is the center of unity of faith (refer to St. Irenaeus previously quoted) ; likewise, the Roman Church is the safe norm of orthodoxy for destorying heresies, v. g., Montanism, Sabelliansim, and for solving questions that rose concerning faith and morals.

b. At the beginning of the fifth century the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was affirmed more clearly by the Roman Pontiffs themselves, v.g., Innocent I, and Zosymus, who declared that in matters of faith recourse should be had to the Holy See because its doctrine is pure and irreformable. Infallibility was corroborated also by the Bishops, v. g., St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others who proclaimed that it was the judgment of the Holy Pontiff that truly concluded controversies. The Councils, too, taught this doctrine of infallibility, maintaining at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, at Constantinople, (III and IV), that Peter had spoken through the Pontiff who was ruling at that time, and that thus the matter in hand was settled.

c. The Council of Florence defined that, “the full power of teaching has been handed down to the Roman Pontiff”. This statement implies infallibility. Finally, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was explicitly defined by the Vatican Council—de Ecclesia, chapter 4.

225 It is not right to say that Tradition held definitions of the Supreme Pontiff as irreformable because of the agreement of the Church, for inerrancy was attributed to the authority of the Pontiff himself, who as Peter's successor, is the center of unity and the authentic interpreter of faith. Nor can we offer opposition the famous distinction of the Gallicans between the Chair and Him who occupies the Chair. This distinction is entirely foreign to the minds of the Fathers, for they gave their obedience to the ruling Pontiff himself.

Too, this distinction would take away from the Pontiff all authority since each one could then declare that he was adhering to the infallible Chair of Peter, but not to the Pontiff who at the particular time was occupying it and who was guilty of error.

226 The Protestants offer the objection that certain Pontiffs de factor made mistakes : Liberius subscribed to the formula of Sirmium ; Honorious taught monothelism ; Paul V and Urban VIII condemned Galileo.

We leave these charges to the historians. At this point let it be sufficient to understand that these Pontiffs, even if perchance they did make mistakes as private individuals, or if they explained doctrines obscurely and incompletely, did not teach error while they were speaking ex catedra. Therefore the Catholic thesis stands.

227  Proof from Reason.

Admit the infallibility of the Body of Bishops and still the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is most advantageous to the Church, because Ecuмenical Councils cannot be assembled easily or promptly whenever some new error arises. Further, the consent or agreement of the universal Church cannot be looked for often, nor can it easily be ascertained.

It would be foolish to claim that general councils would be useless, (in light of the infallibility of the Holy Pontiff) for they are of service in discerning ecclesiastical tradition and in judging the opportune time for a new definition. Also, there is no merit in the charge that this authority of the Supreme Pontiff is despotic, that it takes away all freedom of thought, for when this authority authentically interprets the word of God, it imposes only truth and deprives man of no liberty except that of error.

228  Conclusion

It is historically evident that Christ established the Church as a society properly called; as an hierarchical society which was to be ruled by an infallible College of Bishops; as a monarchical society which was to be nourished by means of the supreme authority of the infallible Roman Pontiff.

Therefore, the true Church of Christ is the Church which the Roman Pontiff rules over.

...he is Orthodox after all. But that article about the papacy is on target about Pius IX's shocking apostasy.  

 Amazing - Traditionalists here, (with one kind hearted exception) are not interested in the traditional liturgy of 1000 AD when the Catholic Church was one.

 Ratzi's rat pack is showing their true colors!

============================

 In answer to "Supreme Ruler of the World", there was a coin minted by Leo XIII that indicated that statement. I think it is so embarrassing to the Vatican that most references have been confined to the Orwellian memory hole.

http://www.trushare.com/39AUG98/AU98WAKE.HTM

THIS PHRASE meaning "To the Lord God, supreme ruler of the world", is the motto of the Benedictine Order. Most of us will know this phrase by its abbreviation DOM found either on a bottle of Benedictine, or as a prefix similar to "Fr", used by Benedictine monks. A couple of weeks ago I became an Oblate of Buckfast Abbey in Devon. As I drove the fifteen miles or so to get home I reflected upon what I had just experienced and what had prompted me to take this course of action.

It was something I had been considering for a long time. I had read the Rule of S Benedict a few times, spoken to those I thought could help and of course, prayed that I might be guided to make the right decision. So this was the coming together of a lengthy period of thought and prayer.

The Benedictines have been a major force in the Church for around 1500 years. In other words, the Benedictines were up and running 500 years or so before the schism between East and West. The Benedictines are then, grounded in the Christianity before the arguments of jurisdiction and theological interpretation became so vehement and uncharitable. In order not only survive for so long but to maintain their strength and vitality, the Benedictines must have something different, something special. And that something special probably consists of two things above all else. An adherence to Scripture as containing the revelation of God's love in Jesus Christ; and that well known watchword of theirs - "Stability". For those of us who are getting a bit fed up with the politics of the Church of England and desire nothing more than to live out our Christian lives as free as is humanly possible from arguments about what ought to be considered central to Christianity, this "stability" the Rule aims to give is something I, and others increasingly need during these uncertain times.

...