(1) Catholicity or Universality: Is the sede sect geographically universal? To ask the question is to answer it. It is nowhere near to it. Mal 1:11 requires a Universal Church with a Universal Sacrifice, and the m-RCC has it, with 1.4 BN Catholics and 400,000+ Priests in every nation, but the s-RCC does not.
"He who has ears, let him hear".
It's incredible some people think the sede sect, or the sede Church if you will, is supposedly the Roman Catholic Church..
(1) Catholicity or Universality: Is the sede sect geographically universal? To ask the question is to answer it. It is nowhere near to it. Mal 1:11 requires a Universal Church with a Universal Sacrifice, and the m-RCC has it,Won't even read the rest of your nonsense.
.Me, neither! It sounds to me it’s one of those questions for which there’ll be no definitive answer until Rome comes to Her senses. In the meantime, most of us have more pressing issues to attend.
Who are you talking about? I've never heard anyone assert this.
Me, neither! It sounds to me it’s one of those questions for which there’ll be no definitive answer until Rome comes to Her senses. In the meantime, most of us have more pressing issues to attend..
I have never heard any sedevacantist say that only sedevacantists are Catholic. Such an idea would be absurd.At an SV site, I read that the Conciliar or post Vatican II Church is a counterfeit Church and not the Catholic Church. For example, on MHFM I read: "This article gives the stunning evidence that the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Church which opposes the true Catholic Church in the last days, is the Harlot of Babylon prophesied …"
At an SV site, I read that the Conciliar or post Vatican II Church is a counterfeit Church and not the Catholic Church. For example, on MHFM I read: "This article gives the stunning evidence that the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Church which opposes the true Catholic Church in the last days, is the Harlot of Babylon prophesied …"Curiously you left out the evidence and the fact that this is acknowledged by many saints and theologians
At an SV site, I read that the Conciliar or post Vatican II Church is a counterfeit Church and not the Catholic Church. For example, on MHFM I read: "This article gives the stunning evidence that the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Church which opposes the true Catholic Church in the last days, is the Harlot of Babylon prophesied …".
.The Church does not teach these heresy. Pope Pius XII is very clear that only those who are baptised and profess the true faith are members of the Church. And the Council of Florence states that EVEN IF YOU SHED YOUR BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST YOU CANNOT BE SAVED, unless you are in the Church.
This position is not at all the same thing as saying all non-sedevacantists are outside the Church. Most sedevacantists accept anyone who rejects the modernist changes and adheres to traditional Catholic teaching as being Catholic.
Moreover, the Dimond brothers are not representative of sedevacantist thought. Most sedevacantists accept what their clergy teach them, and no sedevacantist clergy would give the sacraments to the Dimond brothers due to their rejection of Catholic teaching through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium on Baptism of Desire and of Blood. The Dimonds are basically their own little sect with their own ideas. Just because they happen to believe in sedevacantism doesn't mean they are the same, intellectually, as other sedevacantists.
The Church does not teach these heresy. Pope Pius XII is very clear that only those who are baptised and profess the true faith are members of the Church. And the Council of Florence states that EVEN IF YOU SHED YOUR BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST YOU CANNOT BE SAVED, unless you are in the Church..
Baptism of blood is a straight up heresy, and the magisterium has never taught Baptism of desire.
.Saints are not infallible, many of the Saints have made errors that would be considered heretical if held today. Though this does not make them heretics.
The problem with your position is that you are claiming there is a contradiction between the teaching of Pius XII and the Council of Florence, and the teaching of the theologians who taught baptism of desire and of blood. There is no such contradiction. You are the one who is in error, since the Church does not contradict herself.
If baptism of desire and blood were heretical, as you claim, none of the Doctors of the Church who taught it (which is all of them) would ever have been made Doctors of the Church, since the Church does not proclaim heretics to be Doctors of the Church.
Act of FaithTry saying this prayer more often, maybe you will be able to believe what the Church has defined.
...I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because you have revealed them who are eternal truth and wisdom,
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
... the Church does not proclaim heretics to be Doctors of the Church.
... due to their rejection of Catholic teaching through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium on Baptism of Desire and of Blood.
Thats a nice selfie, Elwin. I wouldnt have wanted to dox you, but I see now youve done so yourself.
(https://i.imgur.com/jbaCBJs.png)
Thats a nice selfie, Elwin. I wouldnt have wanted to dox you, but I see now youve done so yourself.
Lol. Will address the arguments subsequently.
So Apostolicity guarantees the other 3 marks are present. Where is Apostolicity found today, in diocesan Bishops appointed by the Popes, or with the sedes?
Oh goodie. Fresh anti-sede blood.
Who are you talking about? I've never heard anyone assert this.
Yet another idiotic false dilemma / dichotomy fallacy. There's Apostolicity of Orders (which not only the "sedes" but also the other Traditional Catholics but even the Eastern Orthodox possess), though it's doubtful whether the Novus Ordo have valid Orders, and there's Apostolicity of mission, the Apostolicity of Faith, and the Apostolicity of Mission. We're obviously in a Great Apostasy now, but even during the Arian crisis anywhere from between 97-99% of "episcopal sees" were in the hands of Arians. Meanwhile, "rogue" bishops like St. Athanasius and a few others went around consecrating Catholic bishops in Sees that had been usurped/occupied by the Arians. Which bishop had the true Apostolicity, the ones with or the ones without the Catholic faith? First and foremost requirement for Apostolicity is the Tradition of Faith, then of Orders, and only third that of of Mission (aka ordinary jurisdiction). Why the Order? Because you can't have Apostolic Mission without Apostolic Orders and Apostolic Faith. Then, even if you have Apostolicity of Orders, you can't have true Apostolicity without Apostolicity of Faith. Thus, the bishops consecrated by St. Athanasius had a greater claim to Apostolicity than the Arian usurpers, who acquired their Sees "legitimately" or by the ordinary process.This was useful information. Is there others threads on this?
Faith: Traditional Catholics
Orders: Traditional Catholics, Eastern Orthodox
Mission: [Novus Ordo]
NO is in brackets because they have a material continuity with the "Mission", and yet they cannot have true Mission because they don't have the True Faith, and only very doubtfully have valid Orders.
Nor does this have anything to do with the R&R vs. "sede" debate, as you're deliberately trying to create a division, since neither R&R nor "sedes" have the Apostolicity of Mission.
At some point, you'll need to decloak your true agenda, because it's becoming exposed bit by bit. I doubt you're even a Traditional Catholic, but are here to cause division on points that all Traditional Catholics agree about.
This was useful information. Is there others threads on this?
In any case, all jurisdiction derives from the Pope, but even in ordinary sedevacante periods, with there being no pope in actuality (vs. in potency), the Church goes into a holding pattern where no new episcopal appointments are made (except in necessity during periods of long SV, and they need to be affirmed by the Pope that follows). Nearly all theologians hold that jurisdiction derives from Christ to the Pope and then from the Pope to the bishops, though a minority hold that Christ supplies it directly to the bishops in some capacity. But, in either case, whatever jurisdiction there is during regular periods of SV is supplied directly by Christ to the Church (lol) and is supplied to whatever extent is necessary to keep the Church functioning. So, in other words, priests continue to have jurisdiction to hear Confessions, and bishops jurisdiction to perform whatever is necessary to keep their dioceses functioning. Christ is actually the Head of the Church, and the Pope merely His vicar or stand-in, so in times of SV, Christ will supply the degree or level of jurisdiction / mission to Catholics who retain the true faith as is necessary for the salvation of souls until the Crisis is resolved.This illustrates you are ignorant of the subject, and hold to confused Gallican/Old Catholic ideas on it. Cardinal Franzelin says: "Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant."
Baptism of blood is a straight up heresy, and the magisterium has never taught Baptism of desire.
" * (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=46-#x)Q. 322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?
A. An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.* (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=47-#x)Baptism of blood does not imprint a character on the soul, nor does it give one the right to receive the other sacraments. It does, however, confer grace and take away sin, original and actual, and the punishment due to sin.* (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=48-#x)Martyrdom is the suffering, from a supernatural motive, of death or a mortal wound inflicted out of hatred for Christ, His religion, or a Christian virtue. In sinners guilty of mortal sin, at least attrition is also required in order to secure the effects of baptism of blood.* (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=49-#x)> "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake, will find it" (Matthew 10:39 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?bk=47&ch=10&l=39#x)).* (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=50-#x)> "For he who would save his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake and for the gospel's sake will save it" (Mark 8:35 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?bk=48&ch=8&l=35#x)).* (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=51-#x)> "And I say to you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, him will the Son of Man also acknowledge before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?bk=49&ch=12&l=8#x)).* (https://www.drbo.org/cat/cgi-bin/d?b=cat&bk=2&ch=24&l=52-#x)> "Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?bk=50&ch=15&l=13#x)).
So, we see the End Times are peculiar.And the Saints and Doctors, and even the Prophets and Scriptures, say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass won't be actually abolished until anti-christ comes; and yes, I totally agree the actual anti-Christ will in fact abolish the Holy Mass, but the Mass will be abolished only for 3.5 years, according to the Saints and Doctors. Thus, by your opinion, that this crisis has led to almost no Sacrifice for 50 + years, this crisis would be worse than the crisis of anti-christ, which is impossible. When the final anti-Christ comes, that will be the worst crisis, and there will also be near-universal persecution, which there isn't currently.
Baptism of Blood is taught in the Gospel, where Christ says those who lay down their lives for His will save it. Your erroneous opinion (and I'm being charitable/mild) would give pause to holy martyrs, who, desiring baptism and even death for Christ, actually would be willing to sacrifice their lives for Christ but who, according to your heresy, would in fact go to Hell for loving Jesus Christ too much!JJoseph, you need to stop self-interpreting Scripture and listen to the Church's interpretation of these matters. See below the DOCTRINAL TEACHING from Pope Eugene, which contradicts your comments above, and which you MUST accept, under pain of sin and hell.
This illustrates you are ignorant of the subject, and hold to confused Gallican/Old Catholic ideas on it. Cardinal Franzelin says: "Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant."
When a Pope dies, all Bishops do not just like that vacate their offices, or lose their ordinary/habitual power of jurisdiction.
So, in other words, priests continue to have jurisdiction to hear Confessions, and bishops jurisdiction to perform whatever is necessary to keep their dioceses functioning.
JJoseph, you need to stop self-interpreting Scripture and listen to the Church's interpretation of these matters. See below the DOCTRINAL TEACHING from Pope Eugene, which contradicts your comments above, and which you MUST accept, under pain of sin and hell.I cited the Church teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the Baltimore Catechism, which you rejected and didn't even address. Also, the words are plain, and every Catholic commentary confirms them, as does the Magisterium of multiple Popes including Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X and Pope Ven. Pius XII.
Lol. "my own commentary". Tell me if you haven't read +Franzelin without telling me you haven't read Franzelin. It isn't my commentary, see this: https://archive.org/details/DeEcclesiaFranzelin/De%20Ecclesia%20%28Franzelin%29_OCR/
Also, you are completely ignorant if you're really continuing to say the Bishops have no Ordinary Jurisdiction in a sede vacante.
"What Franzelin said and even your interpretation of it does not refute what I wrote (and actually has nothing to do with it) is that during periods of SV, Christ is supplying the jurisdiction to the bishops as the Head of the Church."
Christ is not supplying jurisdiction to the bishops, you dishonest ignoramus. The Bishops continue to exercise the ordinary jurisdiction proper to their office.
You are hopelessly confused. Go learn the actual difference between supplied jurisdiction and ordinary jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is supplied to bishops who lack ordinary jurisdiction. Bishops who already have ordinary jurisdiction do not need it to be supplied. You ought to be reduced to perpetual silence, at least on this subject, as various false teachers were by different Popes throughout the centuries. When the prophesied Angelic Pontiff comes, many of you are going to be quite shocked about what he teaches and the disciplines and punishments he imposes upon Dimondists, sedevacantists, and other schismatics.
The Council is thus speaking of those who commit the deliberate mortal sins of heresy and schism and then think that, provided they are martyred for Christ, then their unrepentant mortal sins will be absolved.No, Pope Eugene clearly lists pagans, Jєωs, and then says "no one". Pope Eugene's INFALLIBLE statement applies to all categories of peoples, not just heretics/schismatics.
I cited the Church teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the Baltimore Catechism:facepalm: An infallible council and/or a doctrinal declaration > catechism and/or a papal encyclical/writing.
It in no way condemns Baptism of BloodThe Church has never canonized an unbaptized martyr as a saint, so BoB is just a theory anyways.
Not a good example as that's a vatican 2 'saint'
“St. Gregory of Narek lived and died as a member of Armenian Apostolic Church, making him the only Doctor who was not in communion with the Catholic Church during his lifetime.”
https://news.stthomas.edu/theology-matters-new-doctor-church-st-gregory-narek/ (https://news.stthomas.edu/theology-matters-new-doctor-church-st-gregory-narek/)
There is a question about whether or not he was a heretic.
https://buildingcatholicculture.com/was-the-newest-doctor-of-the-church-a-heretic-evaluating-st-gregory-of-nareks-writings/
I cited the Church teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the Baltimore Catechism, which you rejected and didn't even address. Also, the words are plain, and every Catholic commentary confirms them, as does the Magisterium of multiple Popes including Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X and Pope Ven. Pius XII.You are wrong here. More quotes against you
You are totally ignorant of what the Council of Florence even was about and what it is saying. It is not addressing catechumens at all, nor those seeking Baptism for the first time, nor ready to die for Christ. Rather, it was a re-union Council between Greeks and Latins, and it's a clear admonition to persevere in the Unity of the Catholic Church after having once attained it. Ironically, this is precisely what you Dimondists et al have not done, whereas the Eastern Catholics did it, while the Greek schismatics did not. You are Latin schismatics and not Latin Catholics if you defend separation from Rome, whereas some Eastern Catholics, especially Russian and Ukrainian Catholics preferred horrible death and torture under Communism to remain in Catholic Unity with the Holy Roman Church, which the Council of Trent calls the Mother Church of all Christendom, and Fenton teaches is indefectible even as a particular local Church.
The Council is thus speaking of those who commit the deliberate mortal sins of heresy and schism and then think that, provided they are martyred for Christ, then their unrepentant mortal sins will be absolved. It won't. Neither will yours, unless you specifically repent of yours. So Cantate Domino is not addressed to Eastern Catholics. It's addressed to schismatics, whether Eastern or Western, whether ancient or modern. Reflect carefully on it and try to practice it yourself. It in no way condemns Baptism of Blood, or the great glory of martyrdom for the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Corinthians 4:3-4
And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved (Pope Innocent III, 1215).
We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, 1302).
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
"If anyone in word and mind does not properly and truly confess, according to the Holy Fathers, all, even to the last portion, that which has been handed down and preached in the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God . . . let him be anathema." - Pope St. Martin I
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. 3, Chap. 3, 1870, on Faith:
Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.
But, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" [Heb 11:6] and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, hence, no one is justified without it; nor will anyone attain eternal life except "he shall persevere unto the end on it" [Mt 10:22; 24:13].
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. V, 1546: “…our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God [Heb. 11:6]…”
Sess. VI, Canon II: “If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema” (Denz. 812).
Syllabus of Errors:
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. —Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754: “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).
Pope Gregory XVI: “Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.” (Summo Iugiter Studio # 6, May 27, 1832)
Pope Leo XIII (1902): “By his (Christopher Columbus’) toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life.” (Encyclical, Quarto Abrupto)
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14):
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohammedans and heretics, and all are lost.”
"... these modern incredulous: and if ever someone had remained blinded by their sophisms, that he open his eyes to recognise the truth of our Holy Faith, absent which there isn't hope of salvation."
Preparation For Death: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”
St. Francis Xavier, Dec. 31, 1543: “There is now in these parts [of India] a very large number of persons who have only one reason for not becoming Christians, and that is that there is no one to make them Christians. It often comes into my mind to go round all the Universities of Europe, and especially that of Paris, crying out everywhere like a madman, and saying to all the learned men there whose learning is so much greater than their charity, ‘Ah! What a multitude of souls is through your fault shut out of heaven and falling into hell!’…
St. John Vianney: "Christians who are damned will suffer torments infinitely more rigorous than the infidels. The reason is that these strangers will be damned because they never heard talking about Jesus Christ and his religion; that they lived and died in ignorance."
St. Robert Bellarmine: "...no one is justified without faith in Christ."
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
Pope Pelagius I, Vas electionis: "That I may define by profession my faith, attached below, in which, by God's grace, it may be manifestly clear that I follow in the footsteps of the correct doctrine of the Apostles and Fathers[..]I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other, however, from the rib of the man will then rise again and stand before the Judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or bad; and indeed by the very bountiful grace of God he will present the just, as vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, with the rewards of eternal life; namely, they will live without end in the society of the angels without any fear now of their own fall; the wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction, who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end. This, then, is my faith and hope, which is in me by the gift of the mercy of God, in defence of which blessed Peter taught that we ought to be especially ready to answer everyone who asks us for an accounting[..]But whosoever will hold, believe, or preach otherwise, him the holy and universal Church of God anathematizes."
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
St. John Chrysostom:
“Lest anyone say ‘What about those who do not believe in Jesus Christ’ listen to what Jesus says:
‘I know mine and mine know me’.”
-John 10:14
What denying this doctrine leads to:
Abp. Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976): “We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, only one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved, one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 105, May 22, 452: “… giving thanks to the Merciful and Almighty God that He has suffered none save those who loved darkness rather than light to be defrauded of the gospel-truth.”
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian,
“When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.
Pope St. Siricius (A.D. 385): “… we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life. Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.” (Decree to Himerius on the Necessity of Baptism)
Second Council Of Constantinople, Sess. 3, AD 553: “… the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God, if anyone separates himself from its communion by holding contrary opinions, such a person, since he alienates himself from the orthodox faith and numbers himself with the heretics, is justly condemned and anathematized by the holy Church of God.”
St. Leo the Great at the Council of Chalcedon, St. Leo said the Blood of Redemption can't be separated from the water of baptism.
"It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony–Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
You are totally ignorant of what the Council of Florence even was about and what it is saying. It is not addressing catechumens at all, nor those seeking Baptism for the first time, nor ready to die for Christ. Rather, it was a re-union Council between Greeks and Latins, and it's a clear admonition to persevere in the Unity of the Catholic Church after having once attained it.
[Florence] in no way condemns Baptism of Blood, or the great glory of martyrdom for the Lord Jesus Christ.
the term martyrdom assumes that the shedding of blood is a witnessing to the true faith, which cannot be done by non-Catholics.Excellent point!
...schismatic sedevacantism...
During a vacancy, then, all Bishops already in office retain their habitual/ordinary powers of jurisdiction, but no new Ordinaries are possible. The very so-called "Last Pope" of the sedevacantists taught this clearly in multiple Encyclicals, that ordinary jurisdiction is granted to Bishops only by the Pope..
Even the sedevacantists disagree among themselves. So I don't see which group has the mark of unity.That’s not what Unity means, in this case. Unity, as a mark of the Church, means unity of Faith (ie that all Catholics believe “that which has always been taught”, and accept all doctrines and laws of the Church). Such unity is only found in Tradition, which upholds all tenets of the Faith, same as prior to V2.
That’s not what Unity means, in this case. Unity, as a mark of the Church, means unity of Faith (ie that all Catholics believe “that which has always been taught”, and accept all doctrines and laws of the Church). Such unity is only found in Tradition, which upholds all tenets of the Faith, same as prior to V2.I thought that there was an official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church cannot promulgate a rite which is harmful to the Catholic faith? But there is disagreement and lack of unity on whether or not the NO Mass is harmful to the faith. Fr. Anthony Cekada says that the new Mass:
Disagreements over theological theories and matters which the Church hasnt settled yet…this is not disunity but simply a difference of opinion. Such have been part of church history since the beginning.
(a) destroys Catholic doctrine in the minds of the faithful, and in particular, Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood, and the Real Presence; and (b) permits or prescribes grave irreverence
Here's the argument against a 66 year sede vacante which Mr. Ladislaus is laughably evading:You're extremely dishonest. Pius X never taught BoD. His original catechism didn't have it. You keep ignoring the information that others have posted while repeating your illogical arguments. :fryingpan:
Note that: in a sede vacante, bishops retain their office (unless they die/resign) and thus their ordinary jurisdiction.
(1) In an extended sede vacante, no new episcopal appointments are possible.
(2) Therefore, all bishops appointed by the last Pope into office will eventually die.
(3) Therefore, the Church will eventually defect, when all episcopal offices become vacant.
Yeti's the only person who's even attempted to address this. To his argument: Yeti, the Bishops consecrated during the sede vacante period only had orders until the new Pope confirmed them. Only upon his confirmation did they enter office. Not to mention, the discipline of the Church in the pre-Tridentine period was slightly different, and did not always require Papal mandates to consecrate Bishops.
Pope Pius VI, Charitas: "this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.)."
Yeti mentioned the time period of 1268 to 1271 AD. Here is the law in place at that time, from the Ecuмenical Council of Lateran IV, in 1215 AD: "Bishops too, if they wish to avoid canonical punishment, should take care to promote to holy orders and to ecclesiastical dignities men who will be able to discharge worthily the office entrusted to them. Those who are immediately subject to the Roman pontiff shall, to obtain confirmation of their office, present themselves personally to him, if this can conveniently be done, or send suitable persons through whom a careful inquiry can be made about the process of the election and the persons elected. In this way, on the strength of the pontiff’s informed judgment, they may finally enter into the fullness of their office"
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм12-2.htm
Pope Bl. Pius IX mentions this in one of his Encyclicals proving Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction from the Early Church and from Medieval Canons.
Anthony Padua, if you want to debate BOD/BOB, come to the "was Pope St. Pius X a heretic for teaching BOD/BOB" thread. You still haven't answered that main question, and your evasions of it are impossible. It is demonstrable St. Pius X wrote that Catechism. And he would indeed have been a heretic - which however is blasphemous and schismatic to say - if Dimondism is true and BOD heresy. Dimondism is the blasphemy.
But there is disagreement and lack of unity on whether or not the NO Mass is harmful to the faith.:confused: No there's not.
Here's the argument against a 66 year sede vacante which Mr. Ladislaus is laughably evading:.
Note that: in a sede vacante, bishops retain their office (unless they die/resign) and thus their ordinary jurisdiction.
(1) In an extended sede vacante, no new episcopal appointments are possible.
(2) Therefore, all bishops appointed by the last Pope into office will eventually die.
(3) Therefore, the Church will eventually defect, when all episcopal offices become vacant.
Yeti's the only person who's even attempted to address this. To his argument: Yeti, the Bishops consecrated during the sede vacante period only had orders until the new Pope confirmed them. Only upon his confirmation did they enter office. Not to mention, the discipline of the Church in the pre-Tridentine period was slightly different, and did not always require Papal mandates to consecrate Bishops.
Pope Pius VI, Charitas: "this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.)."
Yeti mentioned the time period of 1268 to 1271 AD. Here is the law in place at that time, from the Ecuмenical Council of Lateran IV, in 1215 AD: "Bishops too, if they wish to avoid canonical punishment, should take care to promote to holy orders and to ecclesiastical dignities men who will be able to discharge worthily the office entrusted to them. Those who are immediately subject to the Roman pontiff shall, to obtain confirmation of their office, present themselves personally to him, if this can conveniently be done, or send suitable persons through whom a careful inquiry can be made about the process of the election and the persons elected. In this way, on the strength of the pontiff’s informed judgment, they may finally enter into the fullness of their office"
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм12-2.htm
With reference to the original question and the 4 marks of the true Church, reading through the posts on this topic, there seems to be a lot of division and disunity among Catholics on various topics. Even the sedevacantists disagree among themselves. So I don't see which group has the mark of unity..
:confused: No there's not.I read that there are some Traditional Catholics and even some SV who attend TLM Mass at FSSP. But this is what I read about FSSP:
Before Vatican II, did Catholics hold that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were a valid Baptism?
Traditional Catholics all agree that they must hold the same Faith that was taught before Vatican 2,
Before Vatican II, did Catholics hold that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were a valid Baptism?They are mentioned briefly in a small book about the faith made around 1910.
Before Vatican II, did Catholics hold that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were a valid Baptism?.
I read that there are some Traditional Catholics and even some SV who attend TLM Mass at FSSP.Then they aren't real Traditionalists, even if they "identify" as such.
Before Vatican II, all Catholics believed what the Church taught about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, which you can find in every pre-Vatican 2 book on the Faith where this subject is treated. The only people who did not accept this were a small group of a few dozen crazy weirdos in a small town in Massachusetts and the one, excommunicated priest whom they followed. And that was only a decade or two before Vatican 2 ...
.Ah yes Saint Peter Canisius and Saint Gregory nαzιanzus are crazy weirdos
Before Vatican II, all Catholics believed what the Church taught about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, which you can find in every pre-Vatican 2 book on the Faith where this subject is treated. The only people who did not accept this were a small group of a few dozen crazy weirdos in a small town in Massachusetts and the one, excommunicated priest whom they followed. And that was only a decade or two before Vatican 2, and continued afterwards. Before the 1940s, or 1930s at the earliest, their ideas had been unheard of in nearly 2000 years of Catholic tradition.
I am responding to humor you, but really, if you want to have a discussion about these ideas, you should respond to the objections people have made to your ideas, including me. You have made little attempt to address much of what I have written.
Perhaps, instead of combative, drive-by questions such as the one I just answered, you could tell us a little about what you believe. For example, do you believe there is anything wrong with Vatican 2? The new Mass? The new code of canon law? Do you have any objection to anything said by any "pope" starting with John XXIII to the present time? What do you think about people who believe the changes in the Church have been an abandonment of the Faith? Do you believe the Vatican 2 teaching on Religious Liberty goes against Quanta Cura and the other encyclicals particularly in the 19th century where the popes condemned religious liberty? Do you believe it was a sin for the post-Vatican 2 "popes" to participate actively in false, heretical, and even pagan worship?