Author Topic: Was there an Eleison Comments this week? (Read 6129 times)

Clavis · « **Reply #30 on:** February 11, 2014, 08:03:50 PM »

This is mostly broad generalization, and those usually tend to be wrong.

First of all, Czechoslovakia was an artificial country made by the union of two nations - the Czechs and the Slovaks, both of which have a distinct history, language and identity, just like the Spanish and the Portuguese, although they are similar in many ways (the languages being mutually intelligible etc.), just like the Spanish and the Portuguese.

Second of all, it is a crude error to group all the Slavs together when discussing many things, especially religion, where they range from Greek Schismatics (in several national churches), Greek Catholics (also in several sui iuris churches), to Latin Catholics. Also, each Latin Catholic nation differs in its piety - the piety of the Polish has become legendary in past decades, the piety of Slovaks, Croats and Bosnians is also very strong, while the piety of the Czech and the Slovenes has diminished, both since the advent of Communism, and even more rapidly decaying since the advent of modern American-style Liberalism, the Slovenes from about 97% Catholic before WWII to about 58% in 2002, and the Czechs so dramatically that from about 80% Catholic in 1950 they have progressively decayed to a mere cca 10% in 2011 (although it is important to take into account Czech history and the fact that the Hussite heresy originated there).

Within the world of Tradition, the Polish are bravely leading the way, the Czech are following, and the others seem mostly asleep. Certainly, a great part of the problem lies with the fact that these were strong Catholic nations before the Council, in which there was a strong instinct of obedience towards Church authority, which was cunningly used by the Revolution, just as in Spain, Portugal, Italy etc., which are now, Traditionally speaking, mostly vast areas of wasteland, while those countries which were swimming in atheism and Protestantism before the Council, such as France or the US, are now the leaders of Tradition.

The main problem for Slavic nations is not that they are Slavic, as you would seem to imply in your comment, but the fact that they were all occupied by Communism for so many years, and still in many ways under its influence. While this occupation has mostly preserved in them a far healthier and more conservative Catholicism than in their brothers and neighbors exposed to Liberalism since the 50s (such as the Austrians), it has also blinded them more to the evil of the Conciliar Revolution and the need to return to Tradition.

Sadly, for most of them as for the bastions of old such as Italy and Spain, the only real renewal will come with the Great Renewal.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** February 11, 2014, 10:12:54 PM »

.

Eureka!!

Last week's EC finally arrived -- at 3:00 pm this afternoon (Tuesday):

Number CCCXLIII (343) 8 February2014

CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY – I

Probably sedevacantists’ main problem is the Church’s infallibility (Conciliar Popes are horribly fallible, so how can they be Popes ?). However, infallibility needs to be looked at for more than just to alleviate sedevacantism. The modern problem of preferring authority to truth is vast.

“Infallibility” means inability to err, or to fall into error. The First Vatican Council defined in 1870 that the pope cannot err when four conditions are present: he must (1) be speaking as Pope, (2) on a question of Faith or morals, (3) in a definitive fashion, and (4) with the clear intention of binding the whole Church. Any such teaching belongs to what is called his “Extraordinary” Magisterium, because on the one hand Popes rarely engage all four conditions, and on the other hand he teaches many other truths which cannot err or be wrong because they have always been taught by the Church, and therefore they belong to what Vatican I called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium”, also infallible. The question is, how does the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium relate to the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium ?

Mother Church teaches that the Deposit of Faith, or public Revelation, was complete at the death of the last Apostle alive, say, around 105 AD. Since then no further truth has been added, or could be added, to that Deposit, or body of revealed truths. Then no “extraordinary” definition can add one iota of truth to that Deposit, it only adds, for the sake of believers, certainty to some truth already belonging to the Deposit, but whose belonging had not been clear enough beforehand. In a fourfold order comes firstly, an objective REALITY, independent of any human mind, such as the historical fact of the Mother of God’s having been conceived without original sin. Secondly comes TRUTH in any mind conforming itself to that reality. Only thirdly comes an infallible DEFINITION when a Pope engages all four conditions to define that truth. And fourthly arises from that definition CERTAINTY for believers as to that truth. Thus whereas reality genera tes the truth, a Definition merely creates certainty as to that truth.

But the reality and its truth already belonged to the Ordinary Magisterium, because there is no question of any Pope defining infallibly a truth outside of the Deposit of Faith. Therefore the Ordinary Magisterium is to the Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail to dog ! The problem is that the Definitiom of 1870 gave such prestige to the Extraordinary Magisterium that the Ordinary Magisterium began to pale in comparison, to the point that Catholics, even theologians, scratch around to fabricate for it an infallibility like that of the Extraordinary Magisterium. But that is foolishness. The Extraordinary presupposes the Ordinary Magisterium, existing only to give certainty (4) to a truth (2) already taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

Let the point be illustrated from a snow-capped mountain. The mountain in no way depends on the snow, except for it to be made even more visible than it already is. On the contrary the snow depends completely on the mountain to be where it, the snow, is. Similarly the Extraordinary Magisterium does no more for the Ordinary Magisterium than to make it more clearly or certainly visible. As winter closes in, so the snowline descends. As charity grows cold in modern times, so more definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium may become necessary, but that does not make them the perfection of the Church’s Magisterium. On the contrary, they signal a weakness of believers’ grasp of the truths of their Faith. The healthier a man is, the fewer pills he needs. Next week, the application both to sedevacantism and to the present crisis of the SSPX.

Kyrie eleison

Summary –

The Church’s infallible Ordinary Magisterium is to the Pope’s infallible Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail is to dog.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #32 on:** February 11, 2014, 10:54:31 PM »

.

Now for the comparison! Czech version in Dark Red, English in Blue:

Comment Eleison CCCXLIII - I infallibility of the Church (2014 )
(343)

8th February 2014

Infallibility of the Church and

The main problem is sedevacantists about the infallibility of the Church ( Vatican II popes are terribly fallible , so how can the Pope ?) . The infallibility but need to look for more than just alleviate sedevacantism . The current problem prioritization of authority over truth is immense.

Number CCCXLIII (343) 8 February2014

CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY – I

Probably sedevacantists’ main problem is the Church’s infallibility (Conciliar Popes are horribly fallible, so how can they be Popes ?). However, infallibility needs to be looked at for more than just to alleviate sedevacantism. The modern problem of preferring authority to truth is vast.

" Infallibility " means the inability to be wrong or fall into error . First Vatican Council in 1870 defined that the Pope can not be wrong , if present four conditions: they must (1 ) speak as pope, ( 2 ) in matters of faith and morals ( 3 ) definitively and (4 ) with the clear intention of commit to the whole Church. Any such teachings belong to what is called his "extraordinary " magisterium , because on the one hand, popes rarely fulfill all four conditions , and on the other hand, teaches many truths that can not be false or erroneous , because the Church has always taught and therefore belong to what the Vatican called " ordinary universal magisterium " of the Church , which is also infallible. The question is how the Pope's extraordinary Magisterium is linked with the ordinary Magisterium of the Church ?

“Infallibility” means inability to err, or to fall into error. The First Vatican Council defined in 1870 that the pope cannot err when four conditions are present: he must (1) be speaking as Pope, (2) on a question of Faith or morals, (3) in a definitive fashion, and (4) with the clear intention of binding the whole Church. Any such teaching belongs to what is called his “Extraordinary” Magisterium, because on the one hand Popes rarely engage all four conditions, and on the other hand he teaches many other truths which cannot err or be wrong because they have always been taught by the Church, and therefore they belong to what Vatican I called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium”, also infallible. The question is, how does the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium relate to the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium ?

Mother Church teaches that the deposit of faith , or public Revelation , was completed by the death of the last living apostle , say around the year 105 AD . Since then there had been , or could be added no more truth to this treasure , a collection of revealed truths. No "special " definition , it can not add one iota of truth to this assumption in order to believers only adds some certainty to the truth which already belongs to the treasure , but which were not found previously clear enough. The quad arrangement comes first objective reality , independent of any human mind , such as the historical fact that the Mother of God was conceived without original sin. Second coming true in any thinking that adapts to this reality . It was not until the third comes infallible definition while the Pope fulfill all four conditions for the definition of this truth. A fourth of this definition for believers arises certainty about the truth. Thus, while the reality creates the true definition only creates certainty about the truth.

Mother Church teaches that the Deposit of Faith, or public Revelation, was complete at the death of the last Apostle alive, say, around 105 AD. Since then no further truth has been added, or could be added, to that Deposit, or body of revealed truths. Then no “extraordinary” definition can add one iota of truth to that Deposit, it only adds, for the sake of believers, certainty to some truth already belonging to the Deposit, but whose belonging had not been clear enough beforehand. In a fourfold order comes firstly, an objective REALITY, independent of any human mind, such as the historical fact of the Mother of God’s having been conceived without original sin. Secondly comes TRUTH in any mind conforming itself to that reality. Only thirdly comes an infallible DEFINITION when a Pope engages all four conditions to define that truth. And fourthly arises from that definition CERTAINTY for believers as to that truth. Thus whereas reality genera tes the truth, a Definition merely creates certainty as to that truth.

The reality and the truth however, belonged to the ordinary Magisterium , because there is no question of any defining the Pope infallible truth outside the deposit of faith . Ordinary Magisterium , therefore, has an extraordinary Magisterium as the dog 's tail and not like the tail of a dog ! The problem is that the definition of 1870 gave extraordinary Magisterium such a position that the proper Magisterium began comparing him to fade to such an extent that Catholics , even theologians have puzzled that made him such infallibility , such as the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium . However, this is crazy. Extraordinary Magisterium presupposes proper Magisterium existing only to give security (4 ) truth ( 2) you have learned the proper Magisterium .

But the reality and its truth already belonged to the Ordinary Magisterium, because there is no question of any Pope defining infallibly a truth outside of the Deposit of Faith. Therefore the Ordinary Magisterium is to the Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail to dog ! The problem is that the Definitiom of 1870 gave such prestige to the Extraordinary Magisterium that the Ordinary Magisterium began to pale in comparison, to the point that Catholics, even theologians, scratch around to fabricate for it an infallibility like that of the Extraordinary Magisterium. But that is foolishness. The Extraordinary presupposes the Ordinary Magisterium, existing only to give certainty (4) to a truth (2) already taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

Illustrates this point graphically on a snow-covered mountain. Hora does not depend on the snow , with the exception that it becomes even more visible than it already . In contrast, the snow that was where it is, depends entirely on the mountain. Similarly, the extraordinary Magisterium does not make for good Magisterium nothing more than that it is clearly visible and safer . As winter comes , the snow line descends . As Christian love in modern times slumps, it may become necessary more definitions extraordinary Magisterium , but that does not make perfection the Magisterium of the Church. On the other hand , indicate a weakness in the faithful understanding of the truths of their faith. The healthier you are, the less pills needs . Next week : sedevacantism applications on SSPX current crisis .

Kyrie Eleison

Let the point be illustrated from a snow-capped mountain. The mountain in no way depends on the snow, except for it to be made even more visible than it already is. On the contrary the snow depends completely on the mountain to be where it, the snow, is. Similarly the Extraordinary Magisterium does no more for the Ordinary Magisterium than to make it more clearly or certainly visible. As winter closes in, so the snowline descends. As charity grows cold in modern times, so more definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium may become necessary, but that does not make them the perfection of the Church’s Magisterium. On the contrary, they signal a weakness of believers’ grasp of the truths of their Faith. The healthier a man is, the fewer pills he needs. Next week, the application both to sedevacantism and to the present crisis of the SSPX.

Kyrie eleison

Summary –

The Church’s infallible Ordinary Magisterium is to the Pope’s infallible Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail is to dog.

.
.
.

In English we get a summary. Some dogs don't have any tail, but do some tails have no dog?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #33 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:14:29 PM »

.

Oh, look! Another thread on the same topic!

.

Francisco · « **Reply #34 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:58:00 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I believe that the ECs have run their course. They have outrun their usefulness. We need an active, hands-on bishop, who goes out into the "Resistance" world and supports both resistance priests and lay in a proactive manner. I am hearing disturbing things about Bp. Willliamson these days, that he is hunkering down, that he's grown timid, that he's tired of the struggle and wishes to withdraw. Heaven knows that he has had to bear a lot of suffering and persecution within and without the NO Church. He is a pariah among the world's secular leaders. Even, I understand, 50 U.S. Congressmen formally condemned him some years back. There are many so-called "traditionalists" who are against him, as well. Still, without him, and without the appointment of more bishops, I see little hope for the resistance. He is presently the face of any viable resistance, not only to New Church, but to the neo-SSPX whose leaders have gone soft and playing right into the hands of the ʝʊdɛօ/Masons in Rome.

You are correct. For instance, Bishop Williamson should be taking on Fr Pfluger right now!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2014, 12:36:01 AM »

.

The Czech version was posted on the REX! website about 26 hours before the English version was disseminated today.

Who knows how long it had been from the time the Czech version was sent out until BrJoseph reported that it had been posted?

..

Now, does the English version shed any light on prior discussion?

Quote from: In [url=http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29889&min=15#p1

this[/url] post, I].

As I feared, :scared2:

Most of this is gibberish. (Thanks, Google Translate!)

But there is a glimmer of hope, nonetheless:

Quote

" Infallibility " means the inability to be wrong or fall into error . First Vatican Council in 1870 defined that the Pope can not be wrong , if present four conditions: they must (1 ) speak as pope, ( 2 ) in matters of faith and morals ( 3 ) definitively and (4 ) with the clear intention of commit to the whole Church. Any such teachings belong to what is called his "extraordinary " magisterium , because on the one hand, popes rarely fulfill all four conditions , and on the other hand, teaches many truths that can not be false or erroneous , because the Church has always taught and therefore belong to what the Vatican called " ordinary universal magisterium " of the Church , which is also infallible. The question is how the Pope's extraordinary Magisterium is linked with the ordinary Magisterium of the Church ?

The popes when speaking authoritatively, cannot be wrong when four conditions are present; when a pope invokes his Extraordinary Magisterium:

(1) - he is speaking as pope,
(2) - in matters of faith and/or morals,
(3) - definitively, and
(4) - with a clear intention to BIND the Church.

E.g., We have problems in each category, since 1962. In fact, there is a date: October 11th, 1962, when John XXIII gave his Most Regrettable Speech (M.R.S.).

(1) - He was speaking as pope, but very weakly. So it hardly SEEMED to be as pope. His manner was oddly limp and halting, as though he was afraid to speak as pope :scared2: .

(2) - He was touching on matters of faith and/or morals, but haltingly, as if he was afraid to even go there :scared2: .

(3) - But it gets worse; a LOT worse. On the matter of DEFINITION, in this M.R.S. John XXIII took the Keys of Peter and hung them on a coat hook in the hall closet, where they remain to this day, because he said that NO MORE WILL WE RELY ON DEFINITION, FOR WE SHALL NOT CONDEMN ERROR ANYMORE. A shudder of trepidation :scared2: ran through the entire Church like a tsunami over the open sea, which only manifests itself in select venues, that is, to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

(4) - The only thing John XXIII (and likewise his 5 successors) intended to BIND was the Power of the Church to do battle with the wiles and snares of the devil who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls (sound familiar?). READ: The Power of the Keys is being held HOSTAGE to the DEVIL, since the keys are hanging on a coat hook in the hall closet.

Case in point: Around the year 1987, JPII came out with his offhand comment one fine day that women cannot be ordained priests. A mini tsunami ran around the world like a runner on a race track. A few subjective recipients reacted. I know one of them. He said that the Pope has invoked his infallibility! He has proclaimed a dogma of the Faith that Binds the Church! He cannot be wrong!

Well, guess what? It took a few years, but eventually the truth came out. JPII never explained himself. Then he died. Then his successor, erstwhile Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, told us that JPII was not invoking infallibility when he said that women cannot be priests because HE DID NOT INTEND TO BIND THE CHURCH.

In other words, this matter of faith and/or morals, spoken by the pope, in a quasi-definitive way (it might be thought of as being definitive, but that's not where the real problem is) was not infallible for one reason and for one reason alone:

The Pope Did Not Intend to Bind the Church.

How do we know he didn't intend to bind the Church? We do not know this because of anything that JPII did or said. He never explained himself. (I said that already!) But he must have said something to Ratzinger in private, or else, these two birds of a feather needed no objective communication because they were on the same page together, flocking.

Whatever.

So my friend was wrong. But I can't entirely blame him, because JPII never explained himself (...already). We CAN blame him.

Oh, but he's going to be so-called canonized. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Gotcha. Ten-Four, tango unicorn.

.

Does anything change in this when the Google Tanslate version of Czech into English is replaced with the corresponding English version paragraph?

Quote from: In Proper English (IPE), +W

Probably sedevacantists’ main problem is the Church’s infallibility (Conciliar Popes are horribly fallible, so how can they be Popes ?). However, infallibility needs to be looked at for more than just to alleviate sedevacantism. The modern problem of preferring authority to truth is vast.

“Infallibility” means inability to err, or to fall into error. The First Vatican Council defined in 1870 that the pope cannot err when four conditions are present: he must (1) be speaking as Pope, (2) on a question of Faith or morals, (3) in a definitive fashion, and (4) with the clear intention of binding the whole Church. Any such teaching belongs to what is called his “Extraordinary” Magisterium, because on the one hand Popes rarely engage all four conditions, and on the other hand he teaches many other truths which cannot err or be wrong because they have always been taught by the Church, and therefore they belong to what Vatican I called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium”, also infallible. The question is, how does the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium relate to the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium ?

I'm a bit pleased, actually, that I anticipated correctly on point (4) that +W was saying the pope intends to BIND the whole Church. The Czech version (which was all I had to go by!) said, "(4 ) with the clear intention of commit to the whole Church." It shouldn't be a big problem to see that "the clear intention of commit to the whole Church" is not immediately and obviously identical to "intends to bind the whole Church." It's not a small matter, either, because on that one word, "bind," the entirety of my subsequent post relies.

In retrospect, I don't think I would have said all the same things if I had read this in the proper English version first. But at the same time, there isn't anything that I would want to REMOVE.

Maybe it's better this way! I guess I should have known that he was going to stay ON TOPIC. Since the Czech version did not entirely stick to the sedevacantist / authority theme, I was not thinking of that. What I took off on was a somewhat parallel road, but it's not too late to get back "on track!"

..And furthermore,

Quote from: [url=http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29889&min=15#p3

Later[/url] I].

Quote from: I

READ: The Power of the Keys is being held HOSTAGE to the DEVIL, since the keys are hanging on a coat hook in the hall closet.

The Power of the Keys hangs on a coat hook in the hall closet and it will be there, or somewhere, until the end of the world, "...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" [/i](discontinuation of the holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, xxviii. 20).

The power of the keys shall not be taken away. It might be put on ice, as it were (has been for 51 years, and counting), but it is available to the pope, if he has a clue, or, that is, if he wants to use it. The fundamental problem with the post-conciliar popes has been that they don't want to invoke the power of the Keys. It could be that they've sort of forgotten all about it.

The current pope seems to think that virtue lies in the opposite extreme, somehow, in going soft on doctrine, and in MISINTERPRETING Church teachings. Therefore, the Faithful are scandalized (cf. Matt. xviii. 6).

Parents used to have to guard their children's eyes from pornography or profanity, or salacious jokes on television or in the movies or on the radio or in the newspaper or in their school textbooks or in the words the guy on the street corner with the bullhorn is using or in the sound pollution emanating from a passing low-rider with the windows down. But NOW, parents have to guard their children's ears from THE WORDS SPOKEN BY THE POPE.

If THAT'S not a sign of the times, I don't know what would be.

He with eyes to see, let him see (cf. Lk. x. 23; Mt. xiii. 16).
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matt, xiii. 43, Mk. iv. 9.23; cf. Apoc. ii. 29, iii. 6, iii. 13, iii. 22).

.
.
.

Why is the power of the pope condemning error so important?

It is precisely because falsehood hides in the dark.. it has power when it is kept secret. Secret societies like the Freemasons only have power when their doctrines are not made known in the open. But when the lies of the devil are exposed to the light of day for what they are, their power disappears, and the power of the truth shines before men like a candle on a lamp-stand.

When the truth is made known and heresy is condemned by the pope defining, the devil's power is destroyed in that area. The only church to have this power is the Roman Catholic Church.

Just because the pope chooses not to USE this power -- not to INVOKE this power -- does not mean he is therefore not the pope.

.

..There is much more to this topic than one EC could possibly address.

This EC does not even TOUCH on the realm of the importance of the pope condemning error. Maybe that's on the way in CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY II. And if so, what will it be, The Importance of the Dog's Wagging Tail?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #36 on:** February 12, 2014, 02:19:35 AM »

.

On the other thread, you'd think that the Czech version was non-existent!

Looks like they were waiting for the official English lest they'd presume there was no EC last week at all. It's evident especially with Matto's post because he made it about 8 minutes BEFORE my EC showed up in my e-mail, so he must have been watching pretty intently, even while this thread had been ongoing for 26 hours, all ready:

Quote from: Matto

I am glad it is finally here. I was worried that there wouldn't be one this [sic] week.

Matto means to say "last week" because "this week's EC" is still being edited. Hopefully it will be more demonstrative of the importance of the Pope Defining. We'll see............

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

What a brilliant and concise analysis of a topic so often considered difficult or "out of reach." I especially liked the simple analogy of the dog to its tail, regarding the relationship between the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Magisterium. Easy to remember! Thank you, Bishop Williamson!

While I agree, it's simple to remember, I have to wonder: "Does it supply the proper image for such an important subject?"

Maybe +W has not been paying attention to popular culture, but not too long ago we had a spate of "tail wagging the dog" going around the entertainment industry (you might call it "news" but it's really "AMUSE" more than news).

Speaking of which, how could the Pope condemning error (a power the pope alone has, as the Orthodox are more than willing to admit, since they DO NOT HAVE ANY POPE who can infallibly condemn error) be in any way whatsoever analogous to THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG? But please explain to me I'm wrong when I tell you that that's precisely what +W's readership is going to be taking away from this mental image.

I'd like to warn Skunkwurxsspx to be cautious with this mistaken notion.

In all likelihood, +W isn't reading this. Nonetheless, I would hope that he reconsiders the trajectory of next week's EC before it's too late.

It is impossible to underestimate the power and importance of the pope condemning error. The only reason that any of the Oecuмenical Councils have infallible canons and decrees is BECAUSE there was a pope present to seal them with the mark of infallibility.

Can you have a mountain that is unable to be a mountain unless it has the layer of snow on top?

Can you have a dog that's not really a dog unless it has a tail?

But you can't have any Great Council of the Church defining ANYTHING unless there is a sitting Pope who approves and confirms the dogmatic definitions contained therein. And the sitting pope uses the same infallibility when he condemns error ex-cathedra, and he uses the same infallibility when he ONCE condemns error, since any proposition regarding faith or morals ONCE CONDEMNED by just one pope, with the intention of binding the Church, and speaking as the Pope addressing the Church, condemns that error in eternity. That is the power God gave to St. Peter as recorded in St. Matthew xvi. 19.

Therefore, the snowcapped mountain and the dog with wagging tail would appear to be analogies that have the key players in the wrong roles. It would seem that the mountain is best thought of being like the Pope and the snow cap on top is the Church's Ordinary Magisterium. Why? Well, does the Russian or Greek or Armenian or Egyptian Orthodox have any infallible Great Councils? No? Why not? Can't they canonize new saints? No? Why not? Isn't their pedigree intact? Uhhh, yeah.... Don't they have Apostolic succession? Uhhh, yeah.... Don't these schismatic Churches have true sacraments and Holy Orders? Yes?

Well, then why can't they be like a mountain?

They can't be like a mountain and they can't be like a dog because they don't have any pope. That's why.

They can't have any infallible condemnation of error because they can't be like a mountain. They are, instead, more like the snow cap of a mountain, which tenuously hangs there in the sky in hopes that some fine day the mountain will show up to support them. And according to the Word of God, if they have the faith of a mustard seed, they can move such a mountain right into place for them.

We'll see about that, too, God willing. It has happened before, at least twice. And one of the times was in Egypt, where the Coptic Orthodox are very proud to relate the history of the moving mountain, which occurred with thousands of witnesses, who saw the sun shining UNDER the mountain when at the command of the holy Christian leader who commanded it, it raised up into the sky in the sight of the Mohammedan overlords who were about to kill the Christians but then they decided not to, all of a sudden. Because the scary part was when the airborne mountain came SLAMMING back down to the earth.

.

soulguard · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2014, 08:51:13 PM »

Yes the pope cannot err in certain things, and +Williamson seems to think that this piece of church teaching supports his position, but what he says is nullified by other church teachings. "The pope cannot err" does not apply to a man whose election was either invalid ( because he is a freemason) OR to a man who is excommunicated from the church for heresy.

Taken literally, the SSPX could get a satan worshiper claiming to be the pope, performing all sorts of blasphemies and outrages on a daily basis, spewing nothing but heresy, seeking to destroy and corrupt all the foolish people who follow him, and yet the SSPX would mention him in the mass as the head of the church of Christ, and would think "The pope cannot err".
It does not matter whether what he says would be the exact opposite of what went before, there are ways around that. Now apply this logic to francis.