Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope? (Read 1681 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #60 on:** **Today** at 12:13:20 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 11:48:34 AM

Angelus,

I said what I said. I don't think I was ambiguous. I'm not concerned with working this out according to what was in the manuals prior to Vatican II. It's irrelevant.

The "governing body" is the hierarchy, a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction (pope and/or bishops with a true power of jurisdiction, legislative, judicial and executive power) is gone. Get over it, and move on. Recognize the signs of the times.

Archbishop Vigano:

DR

So you think the Church's teaching that the true Church (however that may be defined) is "indefectible" has been falsified? Do you realize that Jesus Himself PROMISED that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it?" Do you think that Jesus made an error? Or is it maybe that you don't understand something properly?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #61 on:** **Today** at 12:47:13 PM »

The Council of Trent explained the passage:

Quote

Council of Trent, Decree Touching the Symbol of Faith, Session III

For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,–as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,–be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches. Which Symbol is as follows: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of [Page 17] the Virgin Mary, and was made man: crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried; and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father ; and again he will come with glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets and one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The "gates of hell" will not prevail over the faith, which you, I and all here (one would assume) profess.

Also, the passage of Matthew 16:18 echoes (deliberately) the Genesis 22:17 promise to Abraham, fulfilled in the Church:

Quote

I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies.

The Church has converted the pagan nations to Christ during the bindling of Satan, who could not deceive those nations during that binding. The Church conquered. As we see now, Satan, according to God's will and design, has been "loosed" to deceive again for a brief period before his judgment when Christ returns. Apocalypse 20.

So, no, I do not believe the "gates of hell" have prevailed.

Angelus · « **Reply #62 on:** **Today** at 01:01:40 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 12:47:13 PM

The Council of Trent explained the passage:

The "gates of hell" will not prevail over the faith, which you, I and all here (one would assume) profess.

Also, the passage of Matthew 16:18 echoes (deliberately) the Genesis 22:17 promise to Abraham, fulfilled in the Church:

The Church has converted the pagan nations to Christ during the bindling of Satan, who could not deceive those nations during that binding. The Church conquered. As we see now, Satan, according to God's will and design, has been "loosed" to deceive again for a brief period before his judgment when Christ returns. Apocalypse 20.

So, no, I do not believe the "gates of hell" have prevailed.

There is no need to go back to Trent, although I think what Trent says is perfectly compatible with Pastor Aeternus.

Pastor Aeternus explained the "gates of Hell" passage even more precisely and related it to the Successors of Peter in the section right after the one I quoted above:

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Is there some reason that you want to avoid examining the teaching of Pastor Aeternus, which has to do with the Pope and governance of the Church?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #63 on:** **Today** at 01:10:09 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 01:01:40 PM

There is no need to go back to Trent, although I think what Trent says is perfectly compatible with Pastor Aeternus.

Pastor Aeternus explained the "gates of Hell" passage even more precisely and related it to the Successors of Peter in the section right after the one I quoted above:

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Is there some reason that you want to avoid examining the teaching of Pastor Aeternus, which has to do with the Pope and governance of the Church?

They have indeed "discharged their office," the whole reason for the conferring of power. They bound Satan for the 1,000 years, so that the nations would not be deceived. And now they are.

This is the promised time of Satan's loosing.

Your interpretation of Pastor Aeternus is belied by the last 60 years.

Stubborn · « **Reply #64 on:** **Today** at 01:25:15 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 12:00:50 PM

You said above "the Pope has lost the faith." What does Catholic theology say about a man who has lost the Catholic faith holding papal office?

From Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870):

6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:32].

Do you realize, Stubborn, that a true Pope CANNOT lose the faith? That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Magisterium as it has interpreted the words of Jesus Christ Himself from the Gospel of Luke?

Do you claim to be a Roman Catholic, Stubborn? If so, then you must accept on faith what the Church says you must believe. The Church says you must believe that a true Roman Pontiff cannot lose the Catholic faith. Do you believe what the Church requires you to believe or not?

I am not debating the "pope problem." I am merely stating the fact that the SSPX do not question the pope's status. The things they are saying and the respect they are showing him is, imo, how anyone under unjust excoms should deal with a pope who issued unjust excoms. Even if they were of the mind to, it would not help or solve anything for them to accuse him of not being the pope.

The problem that sedes have with the conciliar popes has no place whatsoever in this matter because, as is demonstrated in the OP, it has absolutely zero to do with the issue. The whole sede idea would need to be introduced by the SSPX - THEN it would have something to do with it, but they're not sede.

I understand that you do not agree with this, that's because you are a sede and as a sede, the pope's status is front and center in this matter, but this only is true for sedes, the SSPX are not sede so the pope's status never enters into the equation, not even one iota. Never has.

Personally, so far I like what they are doing and, for the good of souls, I hope they keep it up. Maybe if they keep it up, the crooks in Rome will expose themselves for what they are and in the process wake others up, so as to guide them out of the NO and into the true Catholic faith. It probably won't work that way, but then again maybe, it will, hopefully.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope? (Read 1681 times)

Angelus

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

DecemRationis

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

Angelus

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

DecemRationis

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

Stubborn

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?