Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Classiccom on November 02, 2010, 01:17:32 PM
-
And you people think no one should ever question Vatican Council of 1870, check out this audio .
Fr. Johnson thinks 1570 Trent trashed the liturgy that previously very similar to the Orthodox since approx 1000 AD.
http://reasonradionetwork.com/_archive/MRJ_20101028.mp3
The Orthodox Nationalist: Western Ideas and Ukraine
fr_raphael@yahoo.com
(Former SSPX turned Orthodox priest)
-
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....
-
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....
=====================
It doesn't bother me anymore. I actually liked something you wrote recently. Like a broken clock, you occasionally say the right thing. Anyway, I wish Johnson would tell us more about this new 20th century translation of the ancient liturgy. They have been ignoring that for 1000 years! so I think I am in good company.
-
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?
-
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?
Leisa, are you a Catholic?
-
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!
-
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!
============================
You write a lot of nonsense. Perhaps your vitriolic response is because you base your faith on evil and falsehood . Don't discuss the topic, just spew out slander.
I don't agree with everthing he said, he is Orthodox after all. But that article about the papacy is on target about Pius IX's shocking apostasy. The Vatican Council in 1870 refers to the pope as "the Supreme Ruler of the World". I think that is the position of the antiChrist, to whom power over all tongues and nations was given.
Johnson is not socialist. He believes in a Christian Monarchy.
I never said any pope was not valid. I have always said that each pope should be judged on what they said.
If there is new evidence of what traditional liturgy was used when the Church was one, then I say lets check it out. You stew in your own Club Infallible spirituality that shrieks like the Devil when confronted with a question.
============================
-
Here are some examples of the settled Catholic points which Classiccom "questions:"
. . .
1. Classiccom's posts insinuating, to strongly insinuating,that Catholics are erring in devotion and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and, in so many words, calling us "Mary worshippers;"
--The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds by the heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, asserting that Catholics are sinful in their devotion and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary (and hurling the slur "Mary worshippers" out of his ignorance and heresy!)
2. Classiccom's posts hurling the slur "Club Infallible;"
--The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds by the heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, deriding Papal infallibility and claiming that Popes think the are God!
3. Classiccom's posts seeming to indicate a theological persuasion toward sola scriptura;
--The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds by the heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, advocating sola scriptura.
4. Classiccom's posts crying about the Inquisitions, and thereby attempting to malign the Catholic Church and the Papacy all the way back to the middle of the thirteenth century;
--The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds by the heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, crying about the Inquisitions, and thereby attempting to malign the Catholic Church and the Papacy all the way back to the middle of the thirteenth century!
It seems to me that the appropriateness of devotion and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Papal Infallibility, and not being sola scriptura are clear non-negotiable Catholic positions which one truly professing to be Catholic must hold out of necessity, and which are not legitimately deemed "crisis" and are not open for argument among true Catholics!
Classiccom quoting language maligning the Church and Popes all the way back to the middle of the 13th century, conjuring up the Inquisitions (a common rambling point for heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestants), from a source clearly touting an anti-Catholic perspective, and which is, shall we say, less than scholarly (a travel guide website):
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12202&f=3&min=20&num=20
And again he hits the Inquisitions:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Inventors-of-Evil-Things
The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, also uses the Inquisitions as one of his talking points in one of his heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds, “Man in Black.”
Classiccom posted the following at http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=9164&min=20&num=20
“Please don't take anything here personal. Even if it were personal, a
Christian roast is like prepping for the final exam where the imperfect works are burned so that you may still be saved.
Ephesians 2: 8-10.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Is Classiccom not implying support for the heresy of justification by faith alone?
The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, also adheres to the heresy of justification by faith alone as one of his talking points in one of his heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds, “Last Rites.” And this, too, ties in with Classiccom’s more-or-less expressed disdain for indulgences.
Classiccom has failed to provide a clear, unambiguous response to my insistent questioning as to whether he believes the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing, and whether he believes it is possible or impossible for the Apostolic chain to cease. Also, Classiccom apparently (Classiccom provides few, if any, clear unambiguous answers to questions) holds heretical fundamentalist anti-catholic protestant views on praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary. See pages 7 – 9 of the following thread:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12181&min=120&num=20
I finally got tired of waiting for Classicom to tell me his position regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, and started searching the forum to get a better read on him. I found a thread which was running over a year and a half before I joined the forum, and found that he considers Catholics “Mary-worshippers,” as I had suspected, that same demented view and slur I have had hurled at me numerous times by heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestants throughout my life here in the “Bible-belt:” Classiccom’s exact words:
“The Fatima Hoax - How many Catholics will loose their faith when they figure out they have been deluded by various Popse for many years. Scripture warned us about worshiping the creature more than the Creator. Mary is a creature, not a god.”
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Open-letter-to-the-Pope
The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, also condemns the Catholic perspective of the Blessed Virgin Mary as one of his talking points in his heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds, “Last Rites” and “Why is Mary Crying.”
In the same thread, in light of what Classiccom would have us believe is the state of the Church, I asked Classiccom to respond to the following:
1) How many of the Sacraments do you believe are still available today?
2) Are there any valid bishops still around, in your view, and please identify them?
3) Suppose you wanted to convert someone with little or no current knowledge of Catholicism to the Faith, what reasons would you present as to why they should convert?
4) What specific Catechism or other CATHOLIC source, in addition to the Bible, would you use to train a new Catechumen?
I didn’t think I was asking too much. But, true to form, Classiccom never, or only partially, responded to most of this questioning.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Open-letter-to-the-Pope
Classiccom’s eventual response to the effect “there must be some old Catechism which would be appropriate” (a paraphrased quote from this thread) doesn’t quite set him apart as a man with a suitable plan for jumping ship from the Church our Lord founded. I wonder how old an appropriate Catechism would have to be to gain Classiccom’s approval—I doubt whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent would even suffice, if for no other reason than its chronological proximity to the Inquisitions for which Classiccom sheds so many tears and loses so much sleep!
In yet another thread, http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-last-sermon-of-Martin-Luther, Classiccom quoted the following, from a piece flattering and quoting the heretic Martin Luther:
“http://johnkaminski.info/pages/articles/the_last_sermon_of_martin_luther.htm
The last sermon of Martin Luther
Condensed from his final book: ‘The Jews and Their Lies’
The famous religious reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) nailed his famous Theses on the front door of the Church at Wittenburg as a reaction to what he would later learn was Jєωιѕн corruption inside the highest offices of the Catholic Church in Rome. His ideas inspired the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western Civilization.
. . . .
What follows is a truncated redaction of Martin Luther’s final book: The Jews and Their Lies. It is written by a writer who is neither Catholic nor Jew, but merely a seeker of truth in a world besieged and nearly destroyed by the dishonesty of those who seek to hurt, deceive and destroy others, especially true believers of any type. This redaction consists of selected but unchanged passages from this work, and as such, is more an edited condensation and reshuffling than an actual redaction.
••• “
And, of course, Classiccom ignored my simple query, “So is this what your think of Martin Luther?”
Here is a direct quote from the rusjournal.com website to which I previously referred: "This project is an independent publication of the True Orthodox Church and dedicated to the struggle against the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
It centers around an interest in the idea of Sobornopravna, combining a dedication to social-nationalism,
communitarianism and medievalism."
Here's the anti-Catholic article attacking Catholicisim and the Papacy: http://www.rusjournal.com/popery.pdf
If Classiccom didn't quote heretical anti-Catholic sources and constantly make anti-Catholic seemingly protestant points with which no rational TRUE Catholic (whether Sede, SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, CMRI, Independent, NO) would agree, I wouldn't be so hard on him. But I feel stern rebuke necessary such as to protect others from being lured by heresy.
-
The Vatican Council in 1870 refers to the pope as "the Supreme Ruler of the World".
Could you cite where that is exactly stated in the Council. For me, Google only brings up two websites where that claim is made, but no evidence is provided.
-
Another, very short search search brings this up:
First Vatican Council
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm
Where the word "supreme" is related to the claim:
Session 3 : 24 April 1870
Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith
10. And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office,
Canons
4. On faith and reason
3.
(. . .)
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office,
Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church,
(. . .)
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful
(. . .)
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,
Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
(. . .)
What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church.
(. . .)
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
9.
(. . .)
when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
-
Further reference relating to papal infallibility...
http://strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_2_6.html
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.
-
Van Noort on Papal Infallibility - Dogmatic Theology Vol. II, pp. 288-315
http://strobertbellarmine.net/van_noort_papal_infallibility.html
-
...he is Orthodox after all. But that article about the papacy is on target about Pius IX's shocking apostasy.
What do you expect an Orthodox to say about Catholicism,
the Papacy or Papal Infallibility?
And why would you expect Catholics to fall for the mistaken notions of an Orthodox who is a heretic and schismatic?
-
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.
...
-
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.
...
RC,
Welcome to "Ratzi's rat pack," my friend! :laugh1:
Classiccom,
Your posts by which you "attempt" to retort are never responsive to questions nor relevant to the points; are frequently contextually, if not inherently, incoherent; and border on utter nonsense.
You finally cite something that's not wholly non-Catholic protestant garbage. But the way you presented it appeared (I know you were not being deceitful--it's just how I took it) you had became an Oblate--I was about to congratulate you and had hope you would come to see things my way.
Then when I visited http://www.buckfast.org.uk/page-home.html, I immediately realized it was in the United Kingdom and, additionally, was not a place you would be caught dead. It appears that it is likely N.O., but a retreat there, I'm quite certain, would do you some good.
It's not that I don't care about 1,000 A.D., nor do I rule out the prospect that the Liturgy of 1,000 A.D. is preferable. But I do not believe the Church has been in error for 1,000 years, nor that the Liturgy of the 1940s and early 1950s were invalid. I personally don't think 1962 is invalid (though not preferable) nor 1970 (though severely BASTARDIZED and ripe for and with abuses)! In any event, I think one would be had pressed to find any TRUE Catholic who believes the Liturgy of the 1940s was unacceptable, that we should not pray to Mary, that Vatican I was invalid, and that the concept of Papal infallibility is hogwash!
I feel that salvation of souls can be best accomplished and maximized by returning to the Liturgy, Calendar, rules, etc. of at least back to 1962 (preferably back to the 1940s). But going back 50 - 70 years would be a monumental task and accomplishment for which I hope all on this board are fervently praying and realisitically expect 99.999% are!
Going back before 1870, 1500, or 1000 is unnecessary and unrealistic! Besides, I'm surprised you want to revert to pre-16th century, as your heroes had not invented and popularized the heresy of sola Scriptura yet!
I am impressed that your most recent source at least alludes to a Catholic foundation. Actually reading Catholic sources in their entirety rather than perusing non-Catholic non-authoritative sources for snippets that match your thoughts is not very persuasive. In fact, that blurs what you believe yourself and what you are merely parroting. If it's a non-Catholic message, I am not going to be impressed regardless of the heretic or schismatic you choose to cite.
-
RC,
Welcome to "Ratzi's rat pack," my friend! :laugh1:
[/quote]
:laugh2: Oh yes, anyone who reads my posts knows that I am a member of Ratzi's rat pack --- that is if they are reading them on a computer in their cell at a mental asylym!
Funny how sede-vacantists can serve a purpose for sede-plenists here -- they can be proof that if people do not swallow Classiccom's tales, that does not mean they are all card-carrying members of the Great Apostasy Club. (Not that I think for a moment that any traditional minded sede-plenists are)
-
Very rare interview with a Hermit It is Not Easy To Be Orthodox Christian You will be amazed
http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Very_rare_interview_with_a_Hermit_It_is_Not_Easy_To_Be_Orthodox_Christian_You_will_be_amased
==============================
Orthodox Hermit
"How does God bestow prayer upon one?
Humility, humility and again humility.
Exalting oneself, haughtiness has always been repulsive to God"
-
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?
Leisa, are you a Catholic?
if so, may I suggest a Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, equally wonderful and in union with the Church...Ortohodox are schsimatics.....I was member for yrs of a Ruthenian EC Church....
Clsicom, saw your last comment, it is rather easy to be Orthodox, for you can reject the Pope, belevie yourself right and take no stand on contraception, remarriage for divorced,etc,etc....
-
Yes I am Catholic. I did observe an Orthodox Mass (they don't call it a 'Mass'). It confirmed for me that a proper Mass still exists. I don't know why the Catholic Church couldn't hold on to the Mass. I suspect it was deliberately obliterated.
I also think Pius IX is dubious. I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible", especially in the ordinary magisterium. That's quite wild if you ask me. He really had total faith in every Pope to come, considering most of the Popes following him were anti-popes, then it sortof makes you wonder how infallible Pius IX was doesn't it?
Regarding the split between the Orthodox and Rome, in one of the early councils it was defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then, later on, they added the filioque and the Orthodox did not accept the addition of the filioque because it was not mentioned in the early councils. The church maintained that it always believed (the filioque), it just hadn't made it a dogma yet, but it begs the question if all the Popes are infallible, then why was the filioque not added the first time? It could have prevented the schism.
Obviously the real reason the Orthodox split had to do with their rejection of the papacy. Which, is not a totally outlandish concern given all the anti-popes we have seen in recent history and their ever increasing need to define new dogmas that get the church further and further into heresy (and apostasy).
-
Very rare interview with a Hermit It is Not Easy To Be Orthodox Christian You will be amazed
http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Very_rare_interview_with_a_Hermit_It_is_Not_Easy_To_Be_Orthodox_Christian_You_will_be_amased
==============================
Orthodox Hermit
"How does God bestow prayer upon one?
Humility, humility and again humility.
Exalting oneself, haughtiness has always been repulsive to God"
Wow, that is an amazing video. thank you for sharing it with us.
-
I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible".../
He was confirming what Catholics already believed.
FWIW, if Sovereign Pontiffs are NOT infallible, WHY FOLLOW THEM AT ALL?
A Divine Church that can be WRONG is completely USELESS -- and not very divine.
-
Yes I am Catholic. I did observe an Orthodox Mass (they don't call it a 'Mass'). It confirmed for me that a proper Mass still exists. I don't know why the Catholic Church couldn't hold on to the Mass..
not sure what you mean, there is still the TLM held onto by SSPX, independants, Sedes and the Eastern Catholic rites-their DL is ancient with few add-ons (except for prayer for Pope and "travel by sea, air, land" comment, obviosly not a n isuses -air travel-in odler days)
As far as propr mass, orthodox are viewed to have true orders and valid Apostaolic line and sacrements are still valid (ie, bread/wine does indeed become Body,etc)...that said, though, schismatics are still schismatics.....unless necessity demands-travel and cannot get to a Catholic Mass or pending death, we really cannot particpate in their Liturgies......
heard the story that a Orthodox bishop convereted to RC and went to Rome to look into possible Catholic priesthood, was told by a panicked Vaticanista official that he should stay Orthodox and not disrupt "ecuмenism"....story told to Fr. McLucas by a Greek Orthodox clergyman,I hear....
they rejected Papcy centuries ago, so no, not "not outlandish" at all......as no one can call a full, binding ecuмenical council in their ranks, they have no firm teaching on contraception, remarriage,etc...some allow, some do not, etc...they are increasingly divided.
You seem to imply that the split is the Catholic CHurches fault alone (filoque statements)....is it??
your comments in Pius IX as dubious,doubting infallibility,etc sound more like Classicom and CM, and are not Catholic at all....sorry, no matter what you think of your self, it is not!!! Yesm he had faith in Popes, as true Popes are infallible in a defiend and narrow way.....he trusted Mt16, dont you?? and hte Holy Ghost's guidance-dont you???
so, in short, the Church did hold onto Mass, often underground and in homes, etc......Leisa MO is to blame the Church....sounds to me like she IS Orthodox, if not in name or official practice....yet.........
-
I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible".../
He was confirming what Catholics already believed.
FWIW, if Sovereign Pontiffs are NOT infallible, WHY FOLLOW THEM AT ALL?
A Divine Church that can be WRONG is completely USELESS -- and not very divine.
true, like the Church has belevied in the Assumption, centuries before it was "official", though, I guess if we follow Leisa, then it was not defined, because no Pope could define then.....
-
Belloc
"FWIW, if Sovereign Pontiffs are NOT infallible, WHY FOLLOW THEM AT ALL? "
=================================
Because we are bound to listen to our appointed papal leadership. But not to challenge error is another matter. By your rules of the game Christ would never have been permitted to correct the errors of the OT church of His time. You are a spiritual victim of Pius IX's "I am everything, everybody else in the Church is useless" mindset. That is probably what makes you so cranky.
I think a good analogy is when Americans have to suffer a bad president. The president can commit immoral acts in the oval office, he can lie about it, but nevertheless Americans are bound under his leadership. Slick Willie, JPII, Ratzinger have a common bond - very flawed but they all held power.
======================================
Belloc
"A Divine Church that can be WRONG is completely USELESS -- and not very divine"
Scripture tells us that Christ told Peter to "get behind me Satan". It is also recorded that St. Paul once corrected St. Peter. So you are saying we should have called it quits 2000 years ago ? Christ is divine, not human beings. Just buy a bottle of that DOM inscribed Benedictine so you don't forget.
DOMINO OPTIMO MAXIMO
"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,...
========================
http://www.benedictinedom.com
-
Yes I am Catholic. I did observe an Orthodox Mass (they don't call it a 'Mass'). It confirmed for me that a proper Mass still exists. I don't know why the Catholic Church couldn't hold on to the Mass. I suspect it was deliberately obliterated.
I also think Pius IX is dubious. I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible", especially in the ordinary magisterium. That's quite wild if you ask me. He really had total faith in every Pope to come, considering most of the Popes following him were anti-popes, then it sortof makes you wonder how infallible Pius IX was doesn't it?
Regarding the split between the Orthodox and Rome, in one of the early councils it was defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then, later on, they added the filioque and the Orthodox did not accept the addition of the filioque because it was not mentioned in the early councils. The church maintained that it always believed (the filioque), it just hadn't made it a dogma yet, but it begs the question if all the Popes are infallible, then why was the filioque not added the first time? It could have prevented the schism.
Obviously the real reason the Orthodox split had to do with their rejection of the papacy. Which, is not a totally outlandish concern given all the anti-popes we have seen in recent history and their ever increasing need to define new dogmas that get the church further and further into heresy (and apostasy).
You don't seem very Catholic, with what you post here.
Of course the Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. I wonder now, do you believe that God too, can err?
-
You don't seem very Catholic, with what you post here.
Of course the Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. I wonder now, do you believe that God too, can err?[/quote]
=====================
Myrna, that was a cheap shot and uncharacteristic of you. Leisa never said anything to indicate blasphemy. I have had this happen repeatedly, people putting pejorative descriptions of what I supposedly said. The last pack of lies included that I believed in Protestant Sola Scriptura .
You have stumbled upon something. The Tamudic Jєωιѕн Rabbis did claim to have arguments with God and actually could win the argument. You consider yourself as one of the chief priestesses of the Catholic Universe and are telling us that popes can't be guilty of the spiritual sin of pride ? Pope Pius IX did not act like these Rabbis and by pride, damage the cause of Christendom ?
-
Classi, you are just overjoyed you finally found a fan.
You consider yourself as one of the chief priestesses of the Catholic Universe and are telling us that popes can't be guilty of the spiritual sin of pride ?
I consider myself a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, fighting for my salvation. The popes can be guilty of personal sins of pride. A true pope is infallible when it comes to Faith and Morals ONLY.
-
Well at least we agree on that one item . I didn't mean to call you a priestess, just thew that in for theatrics.
I knew you were not part of the mstical body of ???
-
...
I think a good analogy is when Americans have to suffer a bad president. The president can commit immoral acts in the oval office, he can lie about it, but nevertheless Americans are bound under his leadership. Slick Willie, JPII, Ratzinger have a common bond - very flawed but they all held power.
...
The difference is our Lord never promised political leaders that he would be with them until the consummation of the world as he did the Apostles. Keep in mind, that infallibility is very restricted, as others have pointed out. But in those critical matters infallibility covers, lacking infallibility, how are we any different than than the myriad of protestant sects constantly splintering and multiplying due to disagreements over such matters. And how is the Catholic Church to remain ONE without infallibility.
If such matters are subject to errors, and the laity is free to indepently discern those errors and act accordingly, then wouldn't we have as many variation of "catholic" churches as there are of baptist churches. And wouldn't the Church cease to be ONE and not be the true Church? If the inerrancy of the Apostolic chain under the guidance of the Holy Ghost is a farce, then there goes a significant chunk of why I am Catholic.
Classiccom, please explain why you are Catholic--what does the Catholic Church have that makes you think you or anyone else should be Catholic--if the Church does not have the inerrancy of the Apostolic chain under the guidance of the Holy Ghost?
Bad Papacies, though painful for numerous reasons, are ultimately the most clear demonstration of the manifestation of Christ's statement to the Aposltes that He would be with them until the consummation of the world. Without God's presence through bad Papacies, the Church would be in NUMEROUS splinters and probably would have succuмbed to the gates of hell by now!
-
. . .
Scripture tells us that Christ told Peter to "get behind me Satan". It is also recorded that St. Paul once corrected St. Peter. So you are saying we should have called it quits 2000 years ago ? Christ is divine, not human beings. Just buy a bottle of that DOM inscribed Benedictine so you don't forget.
. . .
Peter was not the Pope while Christ was still on earth. See Matthew 16:18 (I WILL build my Church).
The exchange with St. Paul would not fall under what is covered by infallibility. If you define what is covered by infallibility broader than what actually is, then certainly you will be able to point to errors. But please point to things that we can ALL agree are covered by infallibility and show us error.
-
I have to sympathize with the Orthodox way of thinking. There is just way too much emphasis on the papacy. Having your whole universe tied to one very flawed human being is not healthy. This is the guy they wanted to arrest when he visited Britain. I don't consider Ratzinger or even JPII to be Christian. It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home. To me Infallibility has been the fog of confusion that has prevented Catholics from standing up on their own two feet and make a decision. IF Catholics feared God more than human title and position, they would have given JPII a one way ticket to Warsaw back in 1986.
Ratzinger also supported Assisi is is therefore also a threat. We need Catholics to imitate Jesus and say "Get behind me Satan" . Prayer and fasting will be needed to remove all the demons that control the Vatican. SSPX on vacation?, time for someone else to step up to the plate.
-
It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home.
The Church can't commit crimes. People commit crimes.
Who committed the crimes of not cleaning house and sending the corrupt "popes" back home?
Were they real popes? If so, they could not be sent back home.
Is the institution that Ratzinger presides over, the Catholic Church?
-
. . .
To me Infallibility has been the fog of confusion that has prevented Catholics from standing up on their own two feet and make a decision. IF Catholics feared God more than human title and position, they would have given JPII a one way ticket to Warsaw back in 1986.
. . .
Infallibility is our primary protection AGAINST the "fog of confusion." Without infallibility, where can any legitimate authority be found to keep the Church as ONE? The N.O. is a good example of where weakly adhering to infallible authority, or "cafeteria" style acceptance thereof, gets religion--priests fudging with Liturgy, "feel good" homilies from priests "light on their feet," etc. other bastardizations, irreverancies, mockeries, and/or abuses of God and His Catholic Church.
The 15 million protestant camps constantly getting pissed off at each other and splintering into additional heretical camps over idiotic concerns such as whether Mary had an umbilical cord or not is where denial of infallible authority gets religion!
And how do you interpret Matthew 16:19?
I am interested in your response, but as I ask this question, I am reminded that God did not author the chaos that inevitably gushes from the absence of infallible authority--chaos manifested in private Scriptural interpretation leading to 15 million protestant camps! We know they can't ALL be right, but where is the LEGITIMATE authority to say what is right and wrong if not Papal infallibility? Christ didn't give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to Bind and Loose restricted by language such as "only until the sheep can discern better than thee!"
Anyway, please consider Matthew 16:19. Also, please explain what makes Catholicism without infallibility preferable over other "faiths."
-
It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home.
The Church can't commit crimes. People commit crimes.
Who committed the crimes of not cleaning house and sending the corrupt "popes" back home?
Were they real popes? If so, they could not be sent back home.
Is the institution that Ratzinger presides over, the Catholic Church?
================================
Well then , Catholics need to flee from evil . Would be nice if some one could pick up Lefebvre's baton that seems to have been dropped. I don't think the Good Lord will bless that unless various doctrines of demons have been removed, ditch the ruby slippers and opulence and get back to Christian '
reality. Until that happens, we have to remember that everyone that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior is important. Time for the remnant of the one fold to start gathering the remnant not of this fold.
When everybody starts thinking like St. Vincent of Lerins, I think there will be a great revival of the true Faith.
Apocalypse 12:12
And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
-
I think if you look back at the first few centuries in the Church Bishops did err and were excommunicated for it. So I'm not sure where this notion comes from that a Bishop (Pope) cannot err. I think the schism with the Orthodox was the worst thing that happened to the Church because it alienated half of the Church by declaring the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome. And hence, the notion of an incorruptible papacy.
Either way it seems that the Catholic Church is reeping what it has sewn due mainly to the lukewarmness of Catholics today who remain in communion with heretics.
[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
[16] But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
-
If you are Catholic you must believe the Church cannot fall into heresy. Because at that point, it would cease to be the Church.
The primacy of Peter is an apostolic Tradition.
This was accepted when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire:
It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html
-
I think the schism with the Orthodox was the worst thing that happened to the Church because it alienated half of the Church by declaring the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome. And hence, the notion of an incorruptible papacy.
You blame the Catholic Church for the Orthodox lapsing into schism?
What do you mean by "an incorruptible papacy"?
-
If you are Catholic you must believe the Church cannot fall into heresy. Because at that point, it would cease to be the Church.
The primacy of Peter is an apostolic Tradition.
This was accepted when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire:
It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html
Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.
-
Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.
What is the approximate century since which you assert the Church has been heretical?
Without reference to the crisis of Vatican II, the N.O., and other resulting problems, do you discern "heresies" pre-dating the 1950s, other than your position on the role of the Pope?
-
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
So do you think that the Church Histories and Catechisms approved by the Catholic Church, which teach that the Primacy of the Pope began with Peter, are all untruthful?
-
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
So do you think that the Church Histories and Catechisms approved by the Catholic Church, which teach that the Primacy of the Pope began with Peter, are all untruthful?
================
There we go again , putting words in peoples mouths that they never said. I think everybody here does care about the Church and wants a faithfully functioniong Christ centered papacy.
Save the criminal lawyer tactics for Ratzinger. He's going to need them pretty soon.
-
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
So do you think that the Church Histories and Catechisms approved by the Catholic Church, which teach that the Primacy of the Pope began with Peter, are all untruthful?
================
There we go again , putting words in peoples mouths that they never said. I think everybody here does care about the Church and wants a faithfully functioniong Christ centered papacy.
Save the criminal lawyer tactics for Ratzinger. He's going to need them pretty soon.
Don't be an idiot. I asked a question. I did not put words in anyone's mouth. Why don't you bug off and let her answer for herself?
-
" Keenan’s Catechism, published with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, contained the following question and answer—" Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?" "A. This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church."
========================
From KEENAN'S CATECHISM, 1869 edition. "Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible? A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith." After 1870, the question was omitted, but in 1896, the following was added:
"Q: Is the Pope infallible? A: Yes, the Pope is infallible. Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism. A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma."
======================
http://www.biblelight.net/keenan.htm
-
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/0616JN.html
June 16, 2001
ANOTHER PAPAL APOLOGY
Pontiff makes apology to Orthodox, calls for healing wounds of division
(From Louisville, KY The Record, 5/10/01)
By JOHN THAVIS Catholic News Service
In his 24-hour pilgrimage to Greece, Pope John Paul II aimed to break a cycle of ecuмenical antagonism that has lasted nearly 1,000 years.
He did so with a dramatic apology for the past treatment of Orthodox Christians and a call to "heal the wounds" that still divide Western and Eastern churches. He termed the 13th-century sack of Constantinople a "tragic" moral failure by Latin-rite Christians.
'For the occasions, past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him," the pope said May 4 at the residence of the head of the Orthodox Church in Greece, Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens.
It was the first visit to Greece by a Roman pontiff since the eighth century.
Surrounded by a few top officials of both churches, the pope addressed head-on the ecuмenical divisions of past centuries, offering a unilateral apology on behalf of Catholics.
"Some memories are especially painful, and some events 'of 'the distant past have left wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was so long the bastion of Christianity in the East," he said.
"It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret," he said.
The 1204 destruction of Constantinople - the former center of the Eastern church and now the city of Istanbul in Turkey - by pillaging Crusaders has not been forgotten by modern Christians of Greece and is often listed at the top of Orthodox complaints against Rome.
The pope followed his strong "mea culpa" statement with a call to turn the page, saying the time had come for Christians to put aside rancor over past injustices and "walk together."
"Division between Christians is a sin before God and a scandal before the world. It is a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel, because it makes our proclamation less credible," he said.
Archbishop Christodoulos, who faced opposition within his own church on the papal visit, greeted the pope wit a warm embrace and appeared to appreciate the pontiffs words.
"I am happy. The pope was very kind to us. But there is still work to be done on problems facing our churches," the archbishop said after the ceremony.
-
It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home.
The Church can't commit crimes. People commit crimes.
Who committed the crimes of not cleaning house and sending the corrupt "popes" back home?
Were they real popes? If so, they could not be sent back home.
Is the institution that Ratzinger presides over, the Catholic Church?
================================
Well then , Catholics need to flee from evil . Would be nice if some one could pick up Lefebvre's baton that seems to have been dropped. I don't think the Good Lord will bless that unless various doctrines of demons have been removed, ditch the ruby slippers and opulence and get back to Christian '
reality. Until that happens, we have to remember that everyone that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior is important. Time for the remnant of the one fold to start gathering the remnant not of this fold.
When everybody starts thinking like St. Vincent of Lerins, I think there will be a great revival of the true Faith.
Apocalypse 12:12
And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
". . . get back to Christian reality."
Classiccom,
Besides ditching Papal infallibility, what else must we do to get back to Christian reality?
". . . we have to remember that everyone that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior is important."
Please explain the context of this statement. I agree that the souls of all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior are important. But I do not agree that the beliefs and arguments of all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior are important in the context of being valid. Depending on the context of your statement, I may or may not agree--so please clarify the context.
Also, absent Papal infallibility and the foundation thereof that the Catholic Church lays claim to, I do not see where there is any authority for any definite unequivocal guidance in terms of faith, doctrine, morals, or teachings, nor do I see why the Catholic Church is preferable to any other camp that "acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior."
I believe the Catholic Church has the Real Presence, but even that I accept based on Faith, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the interpretation of Scripture of the Catholic Church. Same thing with other Sacraments, too.
So if you do not believe the Catholic Church has the inerrancy of the Apostolic chain as supremely manifested in Papal infallibility, then what does the Catholic Church have that is so grand in your eyes, that after ridding it of these "heresies" you perceive, it will be superior to other camps and will have been worth the fight to get there?
-
Classicom often does not answer questions put to him.
But he does make a ridiculous reply to a question put to another person.
It's useless trying to have a decent discussion with him. He pontificates; he does not discuss.
I think his numerous ignores are well earned.
-
I agree with Classicom that what we need to always believe in is what the Church taught always and everywhere (as much as possible).
The problem with infallibility is that it wasn't a universal belief then or now. And its not even a reality.
The Roman Pope should not act outside of the universal ancient church and against the other popes and bishops, or against tradition. There is nothing prudent about that. He should listen to all the Bishops and then make proclamations in unison with the Church and not against it.
I think there should be a way to depose any bishop including a Pope for heresy. And that no bishop is infallible and incapable of falling into heresy. And that one Bishop can not act alone against all other bishops and against tradition and ancient belief.
I think that the Holy Spirit protects the unity of the Christian church. Otherwise, what is to stop any person from becoming Pope and declaring that pigs fly? The Holy Spirit isn't the Pope's body guard. He is not there to protect the individual but the truth of Jesus Christ.
You can't have truth and heresy together. Where there is one the other is absent. So who protects the truth? Is it one man on earth? Or is it the entire church acting according to tradition?
-
Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.
What is the approximate century since which you assert the Church has been heretical?
Without reference to the crisis of Vatican II, the N.O., and other resulting problems, do you discern "heresies" pre-dating the 1950s, other than your position on the role of the Pope?
-
Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.
What is the approximate century since which you assert the Church has been heretical?
Without reference to the crisis of Vatican II, the N.O., and other resulting problems, do you discern "heresies" pre-dating the 1950s, other than your position on the role of the Pope?
=====================
You can argue heresies, I prefer the Apocalypse 12:12 guide stone. It is a matter of following the 10 commandments and acknowledging Christ as Savior, helping the poor etc. What are you expecting from St. Peter at the end of your spiritual journey : You were flying Catholic Infallible Airlines - in the infallible section as opposed to the fallible section , therefore well done my son .
You have to give Pope John Paul II credit for his apology for the sack of Constantinople. If we attempt to judge by the fruits, what in the heck did the Orthodox do to deserve that kind of treatment.? Ours was the superior theology that committed this act and also the Crusades ? So for future Classicom reference, lets call this the age of Club Superior 1054-1870 . I wonder if anyone has pondered the link between war and Marianology? Crusades/1251 Simon Stock etc.
On the positive side you have to credit Club Infallible with upholding the traditional Christian teaching on birth control. Pretty much the remainder of the Christian world has caved in on that vital point.
2 Timothy 3:6
For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was.
Just like they tried to undermine the authority of Moses (symbol of the pope) , modern fathers have been undermined by their own wives, who preferred birth control and woman's liberation - THis was assisted by the government financial assistance that attempted to destroy the role of a father and family and instead create a brave new world.
So instead of a stay at home mother teaching and raising her children, She has been tricked into a forced government slave work camp. That is called "liberation" in Newspeak.
Douay-Rheims Bible Malachi 4:6
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema
So to me that is the big agenda. Fatima and papal ego tripping are symptoms of people in denial who refuse to accept personal responsibility by holding their leadership (and themselves) accountable to God's laws. JPII and Ratzinger fail the 12:12 test.
-
Classicom once again steps in to answer questions posed to another member, while he refuses to answer questions put to him.
Classiccom are you just an arrogant troll?
-
a big questions is "why should we care what schismatic orthodox say, when daily they drift farther and farther from the Fide"
-
You can argue heresies, I prefer the Apocalypse 12:12 guide stone. It is a matter of following the 10 commandments and acknowledging Christ as Savior, helping the poor etc. What are you expecting from St. Peter at the end of your spiritual journey : You were flying Catholic Infallible Airlines - in the infallible section as opposed to the fallible section , therefore well done my son .
. . .
On the positive side you have to credit Club Infallible with upholding the traditional Christian teaching on birth control. Pretty much the remainder of the Christian world has caved in on that vital point.
. . .
You say follow the Commandments and and acknowledge Christ as Savior, help the poor etc. There are several who purport to do that, but are on different sides on the abortion issue. Without the benefit of "Club Infallible," where may legitimate authority be found for saying whether abortion is against the Fifth Commandment? Same situation with birth control--where is the legitimate authority for saying whether it is wrong or not, if not with"Club Infallible?"
-
You can argue heresies, I prefer the Apocalypse 12:12 guide stone. It is a matter of following the 10 commandments and acknowledging Christ as Savior, helping the poor etc. What are you expecting from St. Peter at the end of your spiritual journey : You were flying Catholic Infallible Airlines - in the infallible section as opposed to the fallible section , therefore well done my son .
. . .
On the positive side you have to credit Club Infallible with upholding the traditional Christian teaching on birth control. Pretty much the remainder of the Christian world has caved in on that vital point.
. . .
You say follow the Commandments and and acknowledge Christ as Savior, help the poor etc. There are several who purport to do that, but are on different sides on the abortion issue. Without the benefit of "Club Infallible," where may legitimate authority be found for saying whether abortion is against the Fifth Commandment? Same situation with birth control--where is the legitimate authority for saying whether it is wrong or not, if not with"Club Infallible?"
======================
I did not dispute popes have authority. In the Old Testament Christ used some pretty strong language to criticize the Chair of Moses occupants, but they were obliged to honor the office. They represented the Law of Moses but in the real world they were degenerates just like the modern papacy.(They were stumbling blocks that made converts twofold the sons of hell- sound familiar ?) . With the crew we have endured, it has to be a miracle that the Church even exists after 2000 years. Ratzinger and company seem to be doing their best to finish off the Chruch.
-
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority
No, they weren't. Can you read, if you look at the quote they used the title Pontiff for Pope Damasus. Moreover the succession from Peter is mentioned. The Petrine primacy has been recognized since St. Peter.
until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
The Church has always had leader since Peter. Whether or not the Popes starting with John XXIII are actually leaders of the Church is an open question.
-
Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.
So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.
Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.
What is the approximate century since which you assert the Church has been heretical?
Without reference to the crisis of Vatican II, the N.O., and other resulting problems, do you discern "heresies" pre-dating the 1950s, other than your position on the role of the Pope?
I really can't answer that question because I haven't studied every pope, nor every council. There are other heresies besides infallibility like baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. How long has ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity been protected by the Roman church? Why did Pius IX keep a boy in his quarters that he kidnapped and refused to return to his parents. If that was not his illegitimate child then I dare say what that was all about.
When you plant seeds it takes time for them to grow and longer for them to blossom. I cannot say when those seeds were planted and by whom but if you want to find out you'll have to go back to the early church and the schism. Then move up history and study the decisions that were made by Popes.
My guess is that the Orthodox would be able to provide you with some clues. They must have seen the inherent dangers of a supreme and untouchable leader and the threat that posed to the preservation of the true faith.
Remember Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
My guess is that if you are not bound to God and his commandments he will not be bound to you. If you let go of the truth then the truth will not be a part of you.
So if the Church lets go of the truth then they will be seperated from it and seperated from Heaven as well.
Thats just my guess but I could be wrong.
-
I really can't answer that question because I haven't studied every pope, nor every council. There are other heresies besides infallibility like baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. How long has ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity been protected by the Roman church? Why did Pius IX keep a boy in his quarters that he kidnapped and refused to return to his parents. If that was not his illegitimate child then I dare say what that was all about.
You're mixing a lot of issues together.
Edgaro Mortara was a baptized Christian. He shouldn't have been raised by his parents once he was a baptized Christian. If you do hold to Father Feeney's positions on Baptism then it's surprising you don't think it was right to protect his Christian Faith.
-
You're mixing a lot of issues together.
Edgaro Mortara was a baptized Christian. He shouldn't have been raised by his parents once he was a baptized Christian. If you do hold to Father Feeney's positions on Baptism then it's surprising you don't think it was right to protect his Christian Faith.
So what you are saying is that the Catholic church endorses kidnapping if a child is baptized and the parents are not?
Surely you jest.
-
So what you are saying is that the Catholic church endorses kidnapping if a child is baptized and the parents are not?
Surely you jest.
It was a legal process. It's not kidnapping. The Jews weren't supposed to hire Christian servants. Apparently you think it's okay for a Christian child to be raised by Jews. Strange position for someone who says only those baptized by water can be saved.
Children are taken from their parents all the time for far less serious reasons. If you really believe the child's soul is at stake then of course the child should be taken from those who would destroy his Faith. Apparently he became an exemplary priest.
-
I suppose you would rather the child had become a Jєωιѕн Christ hater. How long have you been a Catholic?
-
I suspect Leisa is on a mission.
-
I agree Alexandria those are very putrid accusations against Pope Pius IX. This questioning does look like it is leading to something...
-
You're mixing a lot of issues together.
Edgaro Mortara was a baptized Christian. He shouldn't have been raised by his parents once he was a baptized Christian. If you do hold to Father Feeney's positions on Baptism then it's surprising you don't think it was right to protect his Christian Faith.
So what you are saying is that the Catholic church endorses kidnapping if a child is baptized and the parents are not?
Surely you jest.
=======================
Its no joke Leisa. Club Infallible leads to insanity. The previous pope warned Pius IX would destroy the Church. The 9th son who became Pius IX - 9 is a Satanic number, just like 13 (which you see in Fatima). This new Gospel of Pius IX has caused nothing but misery. Agreements with Mussolini and Hiter? Vatican II ?
They still are attracted to burning dissenters at the stake. :heretic:
Douay-Rheims Bible
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation
Isn't Vatican City a nation ?
Christ Himself said the end times would be like the days of Noah. The True Faith survived in the Ark with only 8 people.
-
You're mixing a lot of issues together.
Edgaro Mortara was a baptized Christian. He shouldn't have been raised by his parents once he was a baptized Christian. If you do hold to Father Feeney's positions on Baptism then it's surprising you don't think it was right to protect his Christian Faith.
So what you are saying is that the Catholic church endorses kidnapping if a child is baptized and the parents are not?
Surely you jest.
=======================
Its no joke Leisa. Club Infallible leads to insanity. The previous pope warned Pius IX would destroy the Church. The 9th son who became Pius IX - 9 is a Satanic number, just like 13 (which you see in Fatima). This new Gospel of Pius IX has caused nothing but misery. Agreements with Mussolini and Hiter? Vatican II ?
They still are attracted to burning dissenters at the stake. :heretic:
Douay-Rheims Bible
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation
Isn't Vatican City a nation ?
Christ Himself said the end times would be like the days of Noah. The True Faith survived in the Ark with only 8 people.
Classiccom The Fallible Interpreter of Prophecy.
Classiccom The Fallible Numerologist.
:fryingpan:
-
Classiccom The Fallible Interpreter of Prophecy.
Classiccom The Fallible Numerologist.
:fryingpan:[/quote]
=====================
It is so humbling being so fallible. Check out the old Catholic rites that have been translated into English. Makes the Novus Ordo look pretty secular. I would like to have a mass like this spoken in English. The Holy Spirit enabled the Apostles to be understood in other languages so to me hearing English would be better than the Latin Mass.
Instead of Begin the Bugini, how about another tune? how about something from circa 962 instead of 1962 ? IF you did it right you could bring Orthodox back to the Church and with English, you could even reel in the Protestants.
What sayeth all ye learned elders of Cathinfo ?
(from a forum)
http://orthodoxengland.blogspot.com/
This site has hundreds of pages of ancient Western rites from before the schism, translated and carefuly following the proscriptions of the Russian Synod in the 19th century.
As one can see, although there are differences, one can notice that there is a preponderance of respect given to things that are natural to the True Orthodox Christians today. There is no "reductionism", and contrary to the mythology, Western Orthodox services were not all that much "shorter" than Eastern ones. (This misconception crept in because later Papist services were very short.)
-
Here is one of the translations. Western Rite
http://www.scribd.com/tag/Western%20Rite?l=8
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38280180/Mass-for-the-Exaltation-of-the-Holy-Cross-Sept-14
-
All of this and Recusant too on the other thread. Will the madness never end? Nope. Think Satan has turned up the heat.
-
I would like to know why this is allowed to continue here.
It is one thing having different thoughts of how to handle and live through these days in Holy Mother Church; it is quite another, however, to have to deal with this.