Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Quasimodo on February 23, 2015, 03:12:29 PM
-
Francis made Gregory of Narek a Dr of the Church. He's a St of the Armenian Church. Was he a monophysite? Was he ever considered a Catholic saint in the past? I can't find any solid answers. I wonder if he's the first non Catholic Dr of the Church.
-
I too have looked for information, but cannot find any. By the end of 10th century, canonizations were already on the books. Yet, no evidence on Gregory's canonization.
-
Not sure is Gregory of Narek is important enough to be a Doctor of the Church, but this choice signals something much more interesting.
He is Armenian. He is important to Armenians. The Armenian Catholics are of the Eastern Rite, of which Jorge has a special fondness.
Whatever his reasons for doing this, I am sure they are ecuмenical in nature.
What significance this will have on the future of the Church, I don't know either.
-
It is unusual for a Doctor of the Church's religious affiliation to be unknown. Usually they're quite clearly Catholic, but a little novelty never hurt anyone. Right?
-
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/02/24/the-first-commandment-is-first-for-a-reason/
Apparently he was miaphysite. A non Catholic heretic yesterday, a Catholic saint and Dr of the Church today. I wonder if Luther will become a Dr of the Church and equipollent saint in 2017.
-
As a skeptic, I looked into the Roman Martyroloy from the 18th century and from 1914. There is no sign of any Gregory Narek in the Roman Martyrology at those times. However there is sign of him in the 2005 Roman Martyrology.
If this is the case that he was never on recognized as a saint by the Church, only to be subtly placed in the Martyrology post Vatican II, then Ms. Barnhardt is right with her assertion that he is not Catholic.
As I said before, official canonizations were already well established (803 AD) by the time of his death in 1003 AD, and if he was not canonized or even recognized as a martyr till 2005, then Bergoglio is cooking up something.
-
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:
Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church. He lived and died out of communion with the Catholic Church, and most likely was an adherent of the Miaphysite heresy. Traditionally, a doctor of the church is chosen only among recognized Catholic saints.
Is this a problem? Well, the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia are somewhat consoling:
"It is not in any way an 'ex cathedra' decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error."
And yet, and yet .... this is setting a potentially disastrous precedent. Gregory of Narek may have been a man of extraordinary sanctity; he may have been a great teacher; and it may be a laudable thing that his works become known to the larger Christian world outside of the Armenian community. But if a man is declared a "Doctor of the Universal Church", the faithful have the right to assume that he is, at the very least, a Catholic. Furthermore, as Ann Barnhardt drives home, granting this title to a non-Catholic Armenian priest sends an unmistakable message to all the faithful: heresies that amount to attacks on the First Commandment are no big deal; heresy itself is no big deal; and schism is no big deal.
At this point in this sorry pontificate, given what we know about Pope Francis and his many expressions of religious indifferentism, it is safe to assume that he has an ulterior motive. Bypassing what must be dozens if not hundreds of qualified orthodox Catholics (Dom Prosper Gueranger is already de facto a doctor of this stature), Pope Francis instead chose an obscure mystic who died outside of the Church and presumably held to the heresy of his co-religionists at the time. Why this choice? Let me make a little prediction: By this act, Pope Francis is preparing the faithful for the canonization of the first non-Catholic "saint".
https://culbreath.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/pope-francis-declares-a-non-catholic-a-doctor-of-the-church/
By this act, Pope Francis is preparing the faithful for the canonization of the first non-Catholic "saint". The heresy of Indifferentism is the ulterior, political motive, of such maneuver; This, of course, brought by the Modernist denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus exclusivist dogma, once again.
Lord have mercy.
-
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:
Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.
As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.
-
Bergoglio needs to be driven from the Vatican by an angry mob of Catholics wielding torches, pitchforks, and bull-whips. And he can take Papa Emeritus with him. St. Pius X would have physically beaten him out the front door never to be heard from again.
-
Bergoglio needs to be driven from the Vatican by an angry mob of Catholics wielding torches, pitchforks, and bull-whips. And he can take Papa Emeritus with him. St. Pius X would have physically beaten him out the front door never to be heard from again.
If only Catholics had the wisdom and fortitude to do so, but I take it there's not been a peep of opposition?
By this act, Pope Francis is preparing the faithful for the canonization of the first non-Catholic "saint".
Would that be Luther?
GGMoreno, superb detective work. Thank you for confirmation.
-
As a skeptic, I looked into the Roman Martyroloy from the 18th century and from 1914. There is no sign of any Gregory Narek in the Roman Martyrology at those times. However there is sign of him in the 2005 Roman Martyrology.
If this is the case that he was never on recognized as a saint by the Church, only to be subtly placed in the Martyrology post Vatican II, then Ms. Barnhardt is right with her assertion that he is not Catholic.
As I said before, official canonizations were already well established (803 AD) by the time of his death in 1003 AD, and if he was not canonized or even recognized as a martyr till 2005, then Bergoglio is cooking up something.
I agree with you. The announcement report on Rorate Caeli stated :
For the record: A new Doctor of the Church
As reported today on the Vatican Bollettino, Pope Francis has decided to elevate Gregory of Narek (c. 950 - c. 1005) perhaps the greatest of Armenian sacred writers, sometimes called "the Armenian Pindar", as Doctor of the Church. A translation of his Book of Lamentations can be found here.
Although not mentioned in the Bollettino, this act also apparently serves as an equipollent canonization of Gregory, who was already venerated as a Saint in both the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church.
It is interesting to note that Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church, to which he belonged, was not formally in communion with Rome and Constantinople. However, as those interested in the extremely tangled history of Christianity in the first millennium are well aware, one cannot always speak straightforwardly of "schism" and "heresy" when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom in that era.(Rorate Caeli 2/23/15)
I'm willing to bet Francis will use this "new Doctor" as an excuse to approve the married clergy in the Roman Rite or Communion for the divorced and remarried (or both).
-
I'm willing to bet Francis will use this "new Doctor" as an excuse to approve the married clergy in the Roman Rite or Communion for the divorced and remarried (or both).
Excellent points! I also think this will be the conduit to ease into a false ecuмenism pact with other Eastern Churches. This act of making Gregory Narek a doctor is a sign of "good will"--a step forward in the "right" direction.
There are so many parallels between John XXIII and Francis.
-
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/02/24/the-first-commandment-is-first-for-a-reason/
Apparently he was miaphysite. A non Catholic heretic yesterday, a Catholic saint and Dr of the Church today. I wonder if Luther will become a Dr of the Church and equipollent saint in 2017.
You may have nailed it! That would not surprise come October (or before). In her prophecies, Blessed Anna Katharina Emmerick talks about the false church the "two popes" are building.
"I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church ... But God had other designs. "
And again
"I saw also the relationship between two popes ... I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness...
And again
"I saw again the strange big church that was being built there in Rome. There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints, and other Christians. But there in the strange big church all the work was being done mechanically according to set rules and formulae. Everything was being done according to human reason ...I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed very successful. I di not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of the cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: " Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground."
-
One longs for the days when the naming of a new Doctor of the Church was done for the good of the Church and the edification of Catholics, rather than as token gestures and diplomatic expediencies proferred to non-Catholics (first feminists and now schismatics).
And I can't really see how this is going to be regarded as a "positive" gesture by the Chalcedonian eastern schismatics like the Greeks and the Russians (who make up the overhwelming majority of the schismatic apostolic churches). Indeed, if the reactions I've seen coming from various Greeks and Russians on the internet are any indication, this act will only confirm them in their belief that "Old Rome" has fallen into schism and heresy. It would seem they're more filled with zeal to defend the Fourth Ecuмenical Council than most "Catholics" (most of whom seem to have never even heard of it).
Well, we've learned this much anyway - "Acceptance" of the non-dogmatic Second Vatican Council is a non-negotiable essential for being in "full communion" with Rome. Acceptance of the (very) dogmatic Council of Chalcedon? Not so much, apparently.
-
Ever hear the old expression "you know you're good when the devil hates you?" Well, something of the reverse seems to be in effect here, because, as with nearly all of Francis' novelties and scandals, the people cheering the loudest seem to be the ones with the least concern for the good of the Church.
Case in point, over at Fishreekers, this latest incident has received the Impy Seal of Approval (look upon that avatar at your own risk - unless you're in need of a fast-acting emitic):
This is wonderful news!!! And I will be purchasing a copy of St. Narek's Book of Lamentations.
CounterRevolutionary, I hope this is a consolation and a confirmation for you that we really are one Church and that one need not leave the Western Church to drink from Eastern sources.
Speaking for myself, I want it all.
(http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/useravatars/avatar_1116074_1409184436.png)
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3467515.0
-
They are still letting her post there? Or is it he?
-
Poor little kid here displays true sensus Catholicus in his reaction:
-
Might even have a better claim to the papacy.
-
One longs for the days when the naming of a new Doctor of the Church was done for the good of the Church and the edification of Catholics, rather than as token gestures and diplomatic expediencies proferred to non-Catholics (first feminists and now schismatics).
You see? all the maneuvers they do in modern times are for advancing the political-economic interests of the day; namely the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry's. Back in the 70's what was happening in the world that Paul VI saw the need to proclaim the first female "Doctors" of the Church, something completely unheard until then? well, the Feminist agenda with all the sɛҳuąƖ revolution that it entailed across the globe.
Today, the agenda is to advance the Jєωιѕн nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr with one uniform nation and one world pantheistic "religion" that fits them all, for which Religious Indifferentism and Universal Salvation are key points. Sadly, the Vatican is playing such games at the expense of Holy Mother Church and her true, exclusive dogma of salvation EENS.
Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church, but since then four additions to the list have been women: Saints Teresa of Ávila (St. Teresa of Jesus) and Catherine of Siena by Pope Paul VI; Thérèse de Lisieux[2] (St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face), "the Little Flower" by Pope John Paul II; and Hildegard of Bingen by Benedict XVI. Saints Teresa and Therese were both Discalced Carmelites, while St. Catherine was a lay Dominican.
-
Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church, but since then four additions to the list have been women: Saints Teresa of Ávila (St. Teresa of Jesus) and Catherine of Siena by Pope Paul VI; Thérèse de Lisieux[2] (St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face), "the Little Flower" by Pope John Paul II; and Hildegard of Bingen by Benedict XVI. Saints Teresa and Therese were both Discalced Carmelites, while St. Catherine was a lay Dominican.
I *get* the feminist agenda part, but why were these particular holy women selected?
Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church
I do not question their holiness or sainted status, and I have spiritually benefited from the writings of 3 of these women, but this novelty is disturbing.
Yet, this admission brings castigation even from trads.
-
Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church, but since then four additions to the list have been women: Saints Teresa of Ávila (St. Teresa of Jesus) and Catherine of Siena by Pope Paul VI; Thérèse de Lisieux[2] (St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face), "the Little Flower" by Pope John Paul II; and Hildegard of Bingen by Benedict XVI. Saints Teresa and Therese were both Discalced Carmelites, while St. Catherine was a lay Dominican.
I *get* the feminist agenda part, but why were these particular holy women selected?
Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church
I do not question their holiness or sainted status, and I have spiritually benefited from the writings of 3 of these women, but this novelty is disturbing.
Yet, this admission brings castigation even from trads.
Is like adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. You brake one Tradition and all hell breaks loose. Adding St. Joseph to the Canon seemed harmless (we all love him) same for the three female doctors.
-
I do not question their holiness or sainted status, and I have spiritually benefited from the writings of 3 of these women, but this novelty is disturbing.
Same here. The timing is what makes it even more disturbing. It is like the XX century Church is operating under the false premise of: As goes the world, so goes the Church. So every novelty is done in order to live in harmony with the world and whatever goes on with the current society (which is infernally revolting nowadays). A totally diabolical principle since the world is actually one of our enemies to fight against; and it is dogma that the Devil has dominion upon it. This runs totally opposite to the timeless Catholic strong stance against the world and its fashions.
The "graduality" of it all makes it even more terrifying since one small detail leads to another and another. It is like the broiling flog. To compromise in one moral or doctrinal point, is to fall into a hellish slippery slope.
-
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:
Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.
As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.
So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?
-
So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?
Sooooooo... Do you really believe that a non-Catholic is a Doctor of the CATHOLIC Church?
Of course not. I'm a sedevacantist, so of course I don't think whatever this monkey Bergoglio does is valid in the least, and this making a "Doctor of the Church" of a non-Catholic is yet more evidence that he's a non-Catholic fraud.
But Ladislaus is not a sede, so my questions were simply to illustrate the silliness of what he said.
-
But Ladislaus is not a sede, so my questions were simply to illustrate the silliness of what he said.
Point taken and well illustrated.
However, I wouldn't count out Ladislaus just yet, he has some sede-tendencies.
Disputationes doesn't understand my position at all ... despite my having explained it, oh, about fifty times.
:facepalm:
As a sede-doubtist, I hold that due to the widespread and well-founded doubt regarding their legitimacy, the Vatican II popes can no longer formally exercise authority but that they remain materially in possession of their office until the Church says otherwise. According to the principle Papa dubius papa nullus, they can safely be ignored until the doubt gets resolved one way or another by Church authority.
In addition, even if one WERE a sedeplenist, which I am not, no theologian has ever held the designation as "Doctor of the Church" to be infallible.
-
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:
Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.
As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.
So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?
7 down thumbs to a statement a normal catholic would have to make when dealing with a real Pope. Just shows you how far from catholic r&r is.
-
But Ladislaus is not a sede, so my questions were simply to illustrate the silliness of what he said.
Point taken and well illustrated.
However, I wouldn't count out Ladislaus just yet, he has some sede-tendencies.
Disputationes doesn't understand my position at all ... despite my having explained it, oh, about fifty times.
:facepalm:
As a sede-doubtist, I hold that due to the widespread and well-founded doubt regarding their legitimacy, the Vatican II popes can no longer formally exercise authority but that they remain materially in possession of their office until the Church says otherwise. According to the principle Papa dubius papa nullus, they can safely be ignored until the doubt gets resolved one way or another by Church authority.
In addition, even if one WERE a sedeplenist, which I am not, no theologian has ever held the designation as "Doctor of the Church" to be infallible.
You have yet to quote a single thing teaching that you can do what you do. You have never been able to quote anything saying that what is happening right now can happen without any detriment to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. You have never quoted anything that teaches that you can ignore/reject all of a Popes laws, teachings, encyclicals, liturgy, canonizations etc. indefinitely because they are heretical/erroneous.
Not once. Never.
All you do here is give your own unfounded interpretation of a certain maxim, without backing it up with anything.
-
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:
Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.
As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.
So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?
7 down thumbs to a statement a normal catholic would have to make when dealing with a real Pope. Just shows you how far from catholic r&r is.
No, seven thumbs down because that kind of opportunist browbeating of the same tired dogmatic sedevacantist rhetoric got pretty stale after the first 900 times Myrna did it... and it hasn't regained any of its freshness now that you've picked up her slack.
-
Maybe the statement was a little sarcastic, but browbeating?
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
I think that the statement illustrates the absurdity of the R&R position.
Well, of course you think that. Look at your avatar. Preaching to the choir usually gets many a round of "hear, hear!"
-
Maybe the statement was a little sarcastic, but browbeating?
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
I think that the statement illustrates the absurdity of the R&R position.
Well, of course you think that. Look at your avatar. Preaching to the choir usually gets many a round of "hear, hear!"
I'm not a dogmatic SV. My posts were simply a heads up for Ladislaus to let him know anyone can come in at any time and challenge what he spouts as Catholic teaching.
-
Maybe the statement was a little sarcastic, but browbeating?
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
I think that the statement illustrates the absurdity of the R&R position.
Well, of course you think that. Look at your avatar. Preaching to the choir usually gets many a round of "hear, hear!"
I'm not a dogmatic SV. My posts were simply a heads up for Ladislaus to let him know anyone can come in at any time and challenge what he spouts as Catholic teaching.
Forgive me for barging in. I do not mean the following in a sarcastic manner, but I am curious to know how and by what authority you justify your own position? If I read correctly, you are a sedevacantist?
-
I'm not a dogmatic SV. My posts were simply a heads up for Ladislaus to let him know anyone can come in at any time and challenge what he spouts as Catholic teaching.
Please just give it a rest. I've spent untold hours discussing this subject on other threads, and there's no reason to follow me from one thread to another with your illogical sarcastic one-liners. Whether you agree with it or not, there's no inconsistency in my position. As BD pointed out, it is starting to sound like the perfunctory Myrna-esque "But he's your pope" Chinese water torture to which she subjected everyone for years.
-
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
He is accusing the R&R position of not being Catholic. However, I may certainly be wrong and maybe he is speaking of individual Catholics, you would have to ask the poster...
Well, of course you think that.
Well, of course!
Of course the position is objectively non-Catholic. Which is why I made my sarcastic comments to illustrate it.
It is filled with grave contempt for the persons they deem to be the authorities. If I actually regarded the Novus Ordo hierarchy as Catholic and legitimate, I wouldn't say the things people here say or act like they do.
They think the matter being "doubtful" is a free-for-all allowing them to say whatever they like and disregard what they think is the Church.
Theyre in for a rude awakening.
-
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
He is accusing the R&R position of not being Catholic. However, I may certainly be wrong and maybe he is speaking of individual Catholics, you would have to ask the poster...
Well, of course you think that.
Well, of course!
Of course the position is objectively non-Catholic. Which is why I made my sarcastic comments to illustrate it.
And yet you attack me for saying that it's not Catholic? And then you attack me as if I were an R&R sedeplenist because I do not fully agree with your unbridled private-judgment SVism?
-
They think the matter being "doubtful" is a free-for-all allowing them to say whatever they like and disregard what they think is the Church.
Who's "they"? You're attacking R&R with the expression "disregard what they think is the Church" and refuse to see that the entire point of the "doubt" is precisely with regard to whether or not these popes are of the Church and exercise the Magisterium. I've cited 4 or 5 texts now from various theologians which all affirm the principle that Catholics are not to be considered guilty of schism for refusing submission to Popes on the basis of having well-founded probable doubts regarding the legitimacy of their authority. Yet you keep pretending that there's no basis for this.
-
Maybe the statement was a little sarcastic, but browbeating?
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
I think that the statement illustrates the absurdity of the R&R position.
Well, of course you think that. Look at your avatar. Preaching to the choir usually gets many a round of "hear, hear!"
I'm not a dogmatic SV. My posts were simply a heads up for Ladislaus to let him know anyone can come in at any time and challenge what he spouts as Catholic teaching.
Forgive me for barging in. I do not mean the following in a sarcastic manner, but I am curious to know how and by what authority you justify your own position? If I read correctly, you are a sedevacantist?
I am. Galatians 1:8-9, cuм Ex, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the other theologians teaching the same thing he taught, the other Popes who taught the same etc. There are many justifications for the SV position which are all well taught, unlike the other positions.
But even more importantly, you cannot defend the Church or the Faith effectively unless you hold to SV. Imagine trying to convert a Protestant and telling him that yes, the Church and Popes can habitually teach error and mislead the entire flock after all.
Imagine telling him that things like Assisi can happen and the Pope still remains the Pope or that the Church can stand for such a thing.
It's simply an utter disaster trying to defend the Church while at the same time holding these charlatans are real Popes etc. I dont make excuses for these bold apostates. I denounce them for what they are and explain to non-Catholics THAT is why what is happening, is happening.
It's one thing when one is already a traditionalist, quite another when one is a non-Catholic.
And unless these antipopes have no authority, how will you get a Novus Ordite from not going to the New Mess and exiting the Novus Ordo? What if he were to tell you well they're still Popes and I will obey them, you are not above the Pope?
-
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
He is accusing the R&R position of not being Catholic. However, I may certainly be wrong and maybe he is speaking of individual Catholics, you would have to ask the poster...
Well, of course you think that.
Well, of course!
Of course the position is objectively non-Catholic. Which is why I made my sarcastic comments to illustrate it.
It is filled with grave contempt for the persons they deem to be the authorities. If I actually regarded the Novus Ordo hierarchy as Catholic and legitimate, I wouldn't say the things people here say or act like they do.
They think the matter being "doubtful" is a free-for-all allowing them to say whatever they like and disregard what they think is the Church.
Theyre in for a rude awakening.
And yet Sedevacantism posits an interregnum that is rapidly approaching the lifespan of an entire generation of men; an interregnum that, once it reaches the not-very-distant point where no one on earth will still be alive who remembers the last valid papacy, will have violated any sensible understanding of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
If you really want to win converts to your position you'll have to do better than petty one-liners and the usual lame claims that "perpetual" is not to be understood in its common ordinary sense, but in some secret, relativized sense known only to God. If "perpetual successors" doesn't mean "perpetual successors" in the ordinary, universally understood meaning of the term, then you've rendered the Holy Ghost into some kind of schyster lawyer who plays with language in order to explain away his failure to fulfill His guarantee.
Talk about "contempt for authority."
-
Imagine trying to convert a Protestant and telling him that yes, the Church and Popes can habitually teach error and mislead the entire flock after all.
Imagine trying to convert a Protestant and telling him that the papacy is the line of perpetual successors to St. Peter... but there hasn't been one in close to six decades and there's no sign of one coming anywhere on the horizon.
But hey, our time isn't God's time, right? "Perpetual" means whatever He chooses it to mean at any given time He's moved by capricious whim.
-
Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?
He is accusing the R&R position of not being Catholic. However, I may certainly be wrong and maybe he is speaking of individual Catholics, you would have to ask the poster...
Well, of course you think that.
Well, of course!
Of course the position is objectively non-Catholic. Which is why I made my sarcastic comments to illustrate it.
It is filled with grave contempt for the persons they deem to be the authorities. If I actually regarded the Novus Ordo hierarchy as Catholic and legitimate, I wouldn't say the things people here say or act like they do.
They think the matter being "doubtful" is a free-for-all allowing them to say whatever they like and disregard what they think is the Church.
Theyre in for a rude awakening.
And yet Sedevacantism posits an interregnum that is rapidly approaching the lifespan of an entire generation of men; an interregnum that, once it reaches the not-very-distant point where no one on earth will still be alive who remembers the last valid papacy, will have violated any sensible understanding of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
If you really want to win converts to your position you'll have to do better than petty one-liners and the usual lame claims that "perpetual" is not to be understood in its common ordinary sense, but in some secret, relativized sense known only to God. If "perpetual successors" doesn't mean "perpetual successors" in the ordinary, universally understood meaning of the term, then you've rendered the Holy Ghost into some kind of schyster lawyer who plays with language in order to explain away his failure to fulfill His guarantee.
Talk about "contempt for authority."
You will find the explanation to perpetual successors in any pre vatican 2 manual and it isn't what you or any other non-SV would have us believe.
You will even find theologians like Fr. O'Reilly explicitly saying that a vacancy of the papacy for even decades is not in any way in conflict with the promises of Our Lord.
But you will not find a single theologian teaching what non-SV teach: that the Church can mislead the faithful at large for decades, promulgate a Protestant Mass and that Popes can teach heresy and error to the whole Catholic world.
-
And yet Sedevacantism posits an interregnum that is rapidly approaching the lifespan of an entire generation of men
Please explain the Church teaching on how long or how short an interregnum is supposed to be.
After admitting that there is in fact no such time determined, he will nevertheless say "but it still can't go past x number of years".
Wait for it.
-
on the basis of having well-founded probable doubts
We've never had this conversation, so I must inquire...
What is "well-founded probable doubt"? How is it determined? And who determines it.
Well, the sources I cited did not define these things precisely, but clearly one would have to have a positive (vs. negative) doubt based upon solid, concrete, and credible evidence / information. One used the term "widespread", so that the opinion of a single individual would not suffice; it would have to be affirmed by others.
-
If "perpetual successors" doesn't mean "perpetual successors" in the ordinary, universally understood meaning of the term
Please, enlighten us with the ordinary, universally understood meaning of "perpetual successors"...
I don't have to "enlighten" you on the definition of a common, easy to understand term. That's my point (and thanks for proving it with your circuмlocutory rhetoric, btw).
The moon is in perpetual motion, no? If its motion were halted for a period of six decades, then one could hardly descibe its motion as "perpetual" anymore, could one?
If a certain benificent landowner legally ceded a portion of his land to me for "perpetual use" (with no exceptions or rescission clauses attached), he could hardly expect to riscind my use of that land for a period of sixty years on the basis that "perpetual use" is not a sufficiently well-understood term to obviate such a lifespan-long lapse, could he?
-
And yet Sedevacantism posits an interregnum that is rapidly approaching the lifespan of an entire generation of men
Please explain the Church teaching on how long or how short an interregnum is supposed to be.
After admitting that there is in fact no such time determined, he will nevertheless say "but it still can't go past x number of years".
Wait for it.
No, that's your line, friend.
It's the sedes who invariably admit "Well of course, a vacancy of 1000 years is unreasonable and would constitute a contradiction of the dogmatic decree that St. Peter would have perpetual successors." But then they never give the smallest number of years which they would admit contradicts that dogma.
Seriously, what is it? If 1000 years, what about 500 years? What about 200? 100?
I would answer that common sense tells us that if there comes a time when no one is left on earth who can remember a valid pope (since the pope is after all, the servus servorum Dei), then the perpetuity of succession is effectively broken.
But if you're willing to give me that smallest number of years that SV can remain viable, I'm willing to listen.
-
If "perpetual successors" doesn't mean "perpetual successors" in the ordinary, universally understood meaning of the term
Please, enlighten us with the ordinary, universally understood meaning of "perpetual successors"...
I don't have to "enlighten" you on the definition of a common, easy to understand term. That's my point (and thanks for proving it with your circuмlocutory rhetoric, btw).
The moon is in perpetual motion, no? If its motion were halted for a period of six decades, then one could hardly descibe its motion as "perpetual" anymore, could one?
If a certain benificent landowner legally ceded a portion of his land to me for "perpetual use" (with no exceptions or rescission clauses attached), he could hardly expect to riscind my use of that land for a period of sixty years on the basis that "perpetual use" is not a sufficiently well-understood term to obviate such a lifespan-long lapse, could he?
So you refuse to cite any authority and actual explanation of this, and instead you give us what you think perpetual means with natural examples?
You see what I'm talking about? Is this how Catholic teaching works?
This is what the Dimond boys do, interpret the Magisterium for themselves and appeal to the "obvious sense" of decrees.
It's Protestantism.
-
If "perpetual successors" doesn't mean "perpetual successors" in the ordinary, universally understood meaning of the term
Please, enlighten us with the ordinary, universally understood meaning of "perpetual successors"...
I don't have to "enlighten" you on the definition of a common, easy to understand term. That's my point (and thanks for proving it with your circuмlocutory rhetoric, btw).
The moon is in perpetual motion, no? If its motion were halted for a period of six decades, then one could hardly descibe its motion as "perpetual" anymore, could one?
If a certain benificent landowner legally ceded a portion of his land to me for "perpetual use" (with no exceptions or rescission clauses attached), he could hardly expect to riscind my use of that land for a period of sixty years on the basis that "perpetual use" is not a sufficiently well-understood term to obviate such a lifespan-long lapse, could he?
So you refuse to cite any authority and actual explanation of this, and instead you give us what you think perpetual means with natural examples?
You see what I'm talking about? Is this how Catholic teaching works?
This is what the Dimond boys do, interpret the Magisterium for themselves and appeal to the "obvious sense" of decrees.
It's Protestantism.
Dogmas are defined to clarify, not to obfuscate. Thus, they are written in a manner using simple, direct, common sensible terms.
Adhering to that is not Protestantism. It's your twisting of that ordinary meaning of a clearly defined dogma that reeks of gnosticism.
-
And yet Sedevacantism posits an interregnum that is rapidly approaching the lifespan of an entire generation of men
Please explain the Church teaching on how long or how short an interregnum is supposed to be.
After admitting that there is in fact no such time determined, he will nevertheless say "but it still can't go past x number of years".
Wait for it.
No, that's your line, friend.
It's the sedes who invariably admit "Well of course, a vacancy of 1000 years is unreasonable and would constitute a contradiction of the dogmatic decree that St. Peter would have perpetual successors." But then they never give the smallest number of years which they would admit contradicts that dogma.
Seriously, what is it? If 1000 years, what about 500 years? What about 200? 100?
I would answer that common sense tells us that if there comes a time when no one is left on earth who can remember a valid pope (since the pope is after all, the servus servorum Dei), then the perpetuity of succession is effectively broken.
But if you're willing to give me that smallest number of years that SV can remain viable, I'm willing to listen.
Perpetual successors IN THE PRIMACY (which you don't mention) was directed against Protestants and other heretics who say the powers of St. Peter died with him and no Pope could have them like he did.
Do you accept this?
-
If "perpetual successors" doesn't mean "perpetual successors" in the ordinary, universally understood meaning of the term
Please, enlighten us with the ordinary, universally understood meaning of "perpetual successors"...
I don't have to "enlighten" you on the definition of a common, easy to understand term. That's my point (and thanks for proving it with your circuмlocutory rhetoric, btw).
The moon is in perpetual motion, no? If its motion were halted for a period of six decades, then one could hardly descibe its motion as "perpetual" anymore, could one?
If a certain benificent landowner legally ceded a portion of his land to me for "perpetual use" (with no exceptions or rescission clauses attached), he could hardly expect to riscind my use of that land for a period of sixty years on the basis that "perpetual use" is not a sufficiently well-understood term to obviate such a lifespan-long lapse, could he?
So you refuse to cite any authority and actual explanation of this, and instead you give us what you think perpetual means with natural examples?
You see what I'm talking about? Is this how Catholic teaching works?
This is what the Dimond boys do, interpret the Magisterium for themselves and appeal to the "obvious sense" of decrees.
It's Protestantism.
Dogmas are defined to clarify, not to obfuscate. Thus, they are written in a manner using simple, direct, common sensible terms.
Adhering to that is not Protestantism. It's your twisting of that ordinary meaning of a clearly defined dogma that reeks of gnosticism.
This is Dimondism. It's the silliest thing ever.
Tell me, what are theological manuals there for? What is a Catechism for? Why do Priests go to a seminary for YEARS? What is the Summa?
Do you know of any Catechism, theological manual, treatise etc., that is merely a bare repetition of a Conciliar or Papal decree, or any Creed for that matter, with no explanation whatsoever?
-
I would answer that common sense tells us that if there comes a time when no one is left on earth who can remember a valid pope (since the pope is after all, the servus servorum Dei), then the perpetuity of succession is effectively broken.
Now that we understand your personal opinion, please tell us what the Church teaches in regards to the length of an interregnum.
More of the usual circuмloctions.
The one positing the protracted interregnum must shoulder the burden of delimiting its maximum acceptable length.
The Church herself used the word "perpetual." If that word is not to be understood in its ordinary sense than it is useless, and by extension dogmatic definitions become useless.
I'm sure we can all agree (can we?) that, in a Sede Vacante of 1000 years' duration, St. Peter cannot be said to have perpetual successors in the Primacy of the Church.
So what is the minimum number of years the Sede Vacante can persist before St. Peter can no longer be said to have perpetual successors in the Primacy? "What does the Church say?" You tell me! You're the one positing this extraordinarily long vacancy.
-
I would answer that common sense tells us that if there comes a time when no one is left on earth who can remember a valid pope (since the pope is after all, the servus servorum Dei), then the perpetuity of succession is effectively broken.
Now that we understand your personal opinion, please tell us what the Church teaches in regards to the length of an interregnum.
More of the usual circuмloctions.
The one positing the protracted interregnum must shoulder the burden of delimiting its maximum acceptable length.
The Church herself used the word "perpetual." If that word is not to be understood in its ordinary sense than it is useless, and by extension dogmatic definitions become useless.
I'm sure we can all agree (can we?) that, in a Sede Vacante of 1000 years' duration, St. Peter cannot be said to have perpetual successors in the Primacy of the Church.
So what is the minimum number of years the Sede Vacante can persist before St. Peter can no longer be said to have perpetual successors in the Primacy? "What does the Church say?" You tell me! You're the one positing this extraordinarily long vacancy.
It has been pointed out to you that you have this all wrong, and yet you persist.
That's bad will.
-
on the basis of having well-founded probable doubts
We've never had this conversation, so I must inquire...
What is "well-founded probable doubt"? How is it determined? And who determines it.
Well, the sources I cited did not define these things precisely, but clearly one would have to have a positive (vs. negative) doubt based upon solid, concrete, and credible evidence / information. One used the term "widespread", so that the opinion of a single individual would not suffice; it would have to be affirmed by others.
Why don't you show us what theologians actually teach about doubt.
You won't, because all will be able to see that you have perverted it and given it your own meaning.
A simple read on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on it will reveal how wrong what you say and do is.
DOUBT (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm)
-
on the basis of having well-founded probable doubts
We've never had this conversation, so I must inquire...
What is "well-founded probable doubt"? How is it determined? And who determines it.
Well, the sources I cited did not define these things precisely, but clearly one would have to have a positive (vs. negative) doubt based upon solid, concrete, and credible evidence / information. One used the term "widespread", so that the opinion of a single individual would not suffice; it would have to be affirmed by others.
Why don't you show us what theologians actually teach about doubt.
You won't, because all will be able to see that you have perverted it and given it your own meaning.
I have cited the sources and gone into great depths on other threads. Go have a look.
-
on the basis of having well-founded probable doubts
We've never had this conversation, so I must inquire...
What is "well-founded probable doubt"? How is it determined? And who determines it.
Well, the sources I cited did not define these things precisely, but clearly one would have to have a positive (vs. negative) doubt based upon solid, concrete, and credible evidence / information. One used the term "widespread", so that the opinion of a single individual would not suffice; it would have to be affirmed by others.
Why don't you show us what theologians actually teach about doubt.
You won't, because all will be able to see that you have perverted it and given it your own meaning.
I have cited the sources and gone into great depths on other threads. Go have a look.
Send a link of the one you deem the best. You should know the name of the thread yourself, so you post it.
-
For what it's worth, BTNYC, I firmly believe this whole situation will either be solved or made clear either in this antipontificate of Bergoglio, or in the next, or anywhere from 5-10 years at the most, so the answer to the question of how long a vacant papacy can last will be witnessed by ourselves, if we're alive 5-10 years from now of course.
-
Today, February, 27 is his feast day.
-
Nominis.cef has this to say about St Gregory of Narek;
Born in Armenia near Lake Van, the young Gregory lost his mother; his father decided to enter the convent, confident his son to the monastery of Narek, where he was raised by his great-uncle. Passionate for the study, the young monk reads the Fathers of the Armenian Church and translations of the Greek Fathers. Jealous of the accused of heresy. To trap him, they bring him a pie, a day of fasting. It makes the freedom to cooked birds and they fly away taking with them his heretical reputation. His fame spread. Asked many writings. Even now, its 'sacred Elegies' which expresses his mystical experience is the main prayer book of the Armenian Church.
Illustration: Gregory of Narek writing his famous 'Book of Lamentations' table Advast Berberian 1960 - Museum Melik
- An Armenian monk soon Doctor of the Church (Vatican Radio Feb. 23, 2015)
- Gregory of Narek, Armenian monk and priest of the tenth century, died around 1005, will soon receive the title of Father of the Church (VIS)
The monastery of Narets in Armenia to 1005, St. Gregory, monk, doctor of the Armenians, illustrated by his doctrine, his writings and mystical knowledge.
http://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/5899/Saint-Gregoire-de-Narek.html
-
Today, February, 27 is his feast day.
No. It's not.
February 30 would be more suitable.
-
I guess this is where Lumen Gentium seperates Catholics from Novus Ordites and semi trads. If v2was right then he could be Catholic even though his church was not.
-
For what it's worth, BTNYC, I firmly believe this whole situation will either be solved or made clear either in this antipontificate of Bergoglio, or in the next, or anywhere from 5-10 years at the most, so the answer to the question of how long a vacant papacy can last will be witnessed by ourselves, if we're alive 5-10 years from now of course.
For what it's worth, I have a feeling you're right (that this situation will be resolved one way or another in the near future). The outrages and scandals are coming at an unprecedented pace and with an unheard of boldness. I can't imagine that God will tolerate this to go on much longer.
And furthermore (to clarify my position in case I had given the wrong impression), I do not believe that Sedevacantism is currently a completely untenable position; but I do believe that it slowly becomes so with each passing year. A vacancy of fifty, sixty, even seventy years is not entirely inconceivable to me. But an interregnum of 100-120 years is simply not acceptable to me for the same reason that an interregnum of 5000 years is not acceptable to anyone - namely, that the idea of whole generations of Catholics being born, living, and dying without ever knowing a pope (whether that's one generation or fifty) is simply not reconcileable to the guranetee of perpetual Petrine successors in Primacy over the Church.
In the end, I trust you and I want and pray for the same thing - the election of a Catholic pope of redoubtable Catholc orthodoxy in the vein of Saints Pius V and Pius X who will put and end to this damnable Modernist crisis, and definitively declare the status of Vatican II and all of the papal claimants since 1958.
God's Will be done.
-
Today, February, 27 is his feast day.
No. It's not.
February 30 would be more suitable.
Le mot juste!
-
As a sedevacantist, Francis' action here is only one more confirmation for me that I am right. But this does not mean this declaration will not have negative consequences. I fear for the faith of many neo-conservatives who now seeing that an Armenian heretic can be placed amongst the illustrious ranks of St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas, will lose faith in the Magisterium. We should pray for them.
-
Catholicism.org (http://catholicism.org/saint-gregory-of-narek-was-a-catholic.html)
Saint Gregory of Narek was a Catholic
by Brother André Marie February 25, 2015
This morning, I telephoned an old Armenian Catholic friend to ask him about Saint Gregory of Narek, recently proclaimed Doctor of the Church by Pope Francis. Joe speaks fluent modern Armenian and reads the old classical Armenian literature. He was, for a time after Wold War II, a novice for the Mekhitarist Congregation of Armenian Catholic monks in Vienna, Austria. He is my go-to man for things Armenian and Catholic, and was a big help to Sister Maria Philomena when she wrote “Crowns for Armenia,” which appeared in From the Housetops 46.
To my question whether or not Gregory was pro- or anti-chalcedonian, Joe unhesitatingly replied that he was pro-chalcedonian, and added, “Of course, he was an Armenian Catholic.” He also expressed the thought that this proclamation of Pope Francis could be helpful for the reunion of the members of the Armenian “National Church” with Rome. The words in quotes were his: he does not like the term “Armenian Apostolic,” because he holds it is based on fabricated history. Joe is going to try to find some things he can send me on the matter.
Meantime, if any of our readers is learned in Armenian Catholic matters, I would love to have anything you can contribute in the comboxes about Saint Gregory’s Catholicity.
I found this yesterday, when I was looking on that website, which I don't often do, and I thought it was interesting to see what the view of "Feeneyites in communion with Rome" was.
-
Catholicism.org (http://catholicism.org/saint-gregory-of-narek-was-a-catholic.html)
Saint Gregory of Narek was a Catholic
by Brother André Marie February 25, 2015
This morning, I telephoned an old Armenian Catholic friend to ask him about Saint Gregory of Narek, recently proclaimed Doctor of the Church by Pope Francis. Joe speaks fluent modern Armenian and reads the old classical Armenian literature. He was, for a time after Wold War II, a novice for the Mekhitarist Congregation of Armenian Catholic monks in Vienna, Austria. He is my go-to man for things Armenian and Catholic, and was a big help to Sister Maria Philomena when she wrote “Crowns for Armenia,” which appeared in From the Housetops 46.
To my question whether or not Gregory was pro- or anti-chalcedonian, Joe unhesitatingly replied that he was pro-chalcedonian, and added, “Of course, he was an Armenian Catholic.” He also expressed the thought that this proclamation of Pope Francis could be helpful for the reunion of the members of the Armenian “National Church” with Rome. The words in quotes were his: he does not like the term “Armenian Apostolic,” because he holds it is based on fabricated history. Joe is going to try to find some things he can send me on the matter.
Meantime, if any of our readers is learned in Armenian Catholic matters, I would love to have anything you can contribute in the comboxes about Saint Gregory’s Catholicity.
I found this yesterday, when I was looking on that website, which I don't often do, and I thought it was interesting to see what the view of "Feeneyites in communion with Rome" was.
The fact that there's even a question on this issue, to the point where we have to consult obscure Armenians to determine whether or not the guy was Catholic, says all that needs to be said.
-
he was a catholic[/i] saint of the armenian rite.
all the eastern rite saints are not in the roman martyrology it is the Roman Martyrology not the Synaxarion of the Armenians :whistleblower:
he was not a follower of monophysitism
do some simple research and not just your favorite blog. maybe read about the church and if not familliar ask[/i] before you use a thread to spread gossip just because you dont recognize bergoglio. You make us sound ignorant.
Hey look what that website cath info has to say! the world is watching us they are always watching!
-
the world is watching us
Not really. But the rest of your point was well taken.
-
the world is watching us
Not really. But the rest of your point was well taken.
The sad reality is that if the world is watching at all, it's to laugh. Either to laugh or to declare publicly that the Church now agrees with the World and that Catholics should lighten up and turn to local media outlets for all guidance.
:pray: ---->That souls in danger find their way the an SSPX or Sede Chapel.
-
that an Armenian heretic
I retract and apologize for the claim that he was actually a heretic, because I have no proof of this.