Re: Dante and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

pascendi Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:52 pm

MRyan wrote:
pascendi wrote:
And no, the Catholic Faith won't be helped or hindered if you win or fail at your arguments. Frankly, no one cares.
That's right, no one cares about the truth and none of this matters for it is all about "winning" one's argument. Isn't that right? .

Correct. That's what it is really all about.

MRyan Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:00 am

pascendi wrote:
MRyan wrote:
pascendi wrote:
And no, the Catholic Faith won't be helped or hindered if you win or fail at your arguments. Frankly, no one cares.
That's right, no one cares about the truth and none of this matters for it is all about "winning" one's argument. Isn't that right? .

Correct. That's what it is really all about.

Yes, that's what it's always been about for you, and always has been. You have always projected your "I can take anybody on" bluster onto others, and that too is a fact. The best thing you ever did was leave the forum world.

So how's Facebook going?

MRyan Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:49 pm

columba wrote:
The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized. On the necessity of Baptism, 1913 it states:
“IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM: …A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance…”

It is absolutely incredible that someone who professes to be a Catholic who pretends to be well-versed in the disciplines and faith of the Church can twist in such a deliberately malicious manner the words of an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Nowhere does the Catholic Encyclopedia even remotely suggest “that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized”, and in fact, in the very same article it goes into specific and lengthy detail on the established traditions for the baptisms of blood and desire, and even affirms that “The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here [‘the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen’] clearly set forth.”

So the “solitary instance” the Encyclopedia is referring to is the custom of Christian burial (“sacrifices and prayers for catechumens”), which remained as a prohibitive discipline of the Church until 1917. And only someone of a heretical and schismatic mind-set would make the false charge against Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV who, in reversing this long-standing custom of the Church, had “overturn[ed] another canon on a matter of faith or morals”, thereby codifying heresy into canonical law.

And this is the absolute hubris and the appalling level of "theology", "ecclesiology" and discourse we are constantly subjected to on this forum.

Here are excerpts from the very same article of the “Catholic Encyclopedia” that allegedly “agrees that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized”:

Necessity of baptism

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

Substitutes for the sacrament

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate".

The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."

Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins.

This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire.

Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

The baptism of blood

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins.

The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)

MRyan Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:41 pm

Pope Eugene IV, the Council of Basel (Session 22, 15 October 1435):

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record … especially condemns and censures in the book [‘of friar Augustine of Rome, archbishop of Nazareth’], the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: […] Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following… To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed.

[…]By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

Columba’s response:

Every saint and Doctor, every theologian who ever lived, great as they and their writings were, can't stand (nor would they let stand) against one sentence in a dogmatic proclaimation.

Funny how the unanimity of the Fathers on the truth of the baptism of blood; on the unanimity of the medieval saints, theologians and Doctors on the baptisms of blood and desire, and the unanimity of the post-Tridentine saints, theologians, Doctors and popes on the baptisms of blood and desire “can't stand (nor would they let stand) against one sentence in a dogmatic proclamation” as it is understood by columba, and not by the Church.

Now, responding to the sample testimony of the Fathers (2nd to the early 6th century) I presented some time ago, and will present below, Columba wrote:

You have indeed uncovered much evidence to affirm that many of the saints and doctors favored baptism of blood as salvivic to the previously unbaptised catechumen (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t480-the-fathers-on-baptism-of-blood)

The overwhelming evidence puts a lie to columba’s repeated assertion that the Church’s 2000 year tradition militates against the baptisms of blood and desire, and the lie that the Fathers understood our Lord’s words in John 3:5 in the literal sense as opposed to its traditional and magisterial understanding; and, faced with the indisputable evidence that since the Council of Trent there is not a single saint, theologian, doctor or pope who understands Session 6, Ch. 4 in any other sense than that as it is always presented and taught by the Church, columba has the gall to say:

Let's rewrite this in a orthodox way:

And as far as the named Fathers, there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “proposed” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are implicitly, if not always explicitly denied.

Remember, this is the same columba who said:

You have indeed uncovered much evidence to affirm that many of the saints and doctors favored baptism of blood as salvivic to the previously unbaptised catechumen (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t480-the-fathers-on-baptism-of-blood)

The evidence is there, as columba is forced to admit, but then dismisses this truth in favor of his lie; a lie that says: “there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “proposed” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are implicitly, if not always explicitly denied”.

In other words, all of the Fathers, Doctors, saints, theologians and popes throughout the ages who “favored baptism of blood as salvific to the previously unbaptised catechumen” and taught the doctrine of the baptism of desire (with both doctrines emanating from the same grounding motive of charity), either explicitly or implicitly rejected these same doctrines when they taught the necessity of sacramental baptism, as if there is an inherent contradiction in holding the truths of both doctrines precisely as St. Aquinas and the rest of the Doctors and as the Church understand and teach them.

For columba, the saints, Doctors, and the universal moral consensus of theologians, as well as the popes and the universal unanimity of the Bishops, are an ignorant lot who are forever contradicting themselves and who simply do not understand that for all of their unanimity in teaching the doctrines of the baptism of blood and desire, “as great as they and their writings were [and are], can't stand (nor would they let stand) against one sentence in a dogmatic proclaimation.”

See, one cannot make this stuff up.

And, when presented with the overwhelming unanimity of the Fathers on their belief in the baptism of blood, columba retorts: “Well. It looks like the baptism of desire debate has given way to the baptism of blood. That's progress.”

Columba likes to play this rhetorical game when it makes not one whit of difference if the doctrine of baptism of desire did not take concrete form until after the baptism of blood was already well established (in the first three centuries), for columba rejects both doctrines as heretical. On need only demonstrate the unanimity of the Fathers and the constant tradition for the baptism of blood to expose columba’s lie for what it is.

Here is a sampling of the Fathers:

St. Emerentiana, “a Roman virgin and the foster-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a Catechumen, burning with faith and charity, rebuked the idol-worshippers who were full of fury against the Christians, whereupon a mob assembled and stoned her. Praying in her torment at the grave of Saint Agnes, and having been baptized in her own blood, so generously shed for Christ, she gave up her soul unto God" (Matins, Jan. 23rd).

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 180): “There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love and, according to their generation, follow His Logos”. (Against Heresies, 4.28.2).

Tertullian, (A.D. 203): "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (Baptism 1, 12). "We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid, 16).

St. Cyprian of Carthage (Bishop, A.D. 252): “The catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism.” "[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]). " [Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12]" (ibid., 72[73]:22).

St. Cyprian (martyred in the year 257), who is referenced by St. Augustine, and quotes him directly: Enchiridion Patristicum (paragraph 1328):

“Some people, as if by human argument they could rob of its truth the teaching of the Gospel, present us with the case of catechumens, demanding whether, if one of these, before he was baptized in the church, were captured and killed in the confession of his belief, he would forfeit his hope of salvation and the reward of his confession because he had not previously been born again by water. Men of this kind, who laud and abet heretics, are well aware that those catechumens who first hold inviolate the faith and truth of the Church and advance, with full and sincere knowledge of God the Father and Christ and the Holy Ghost, to fight off the devil from the Divine battlements are certainly not thereupon deprived of the sacrament of baptism seeing that they have been baptized with the greatest and most glorious baptism of blood, concerning which Our Lord said that He had another baptism wherewith to be baptized (Luke 12:50). The same Lord, however, affirms in the gospel that those who are baptized by their own blood and sanctified by their sufferings, are consummated and receive the grace of the Divine promise. This is implied by His words when he spoke to the thief who believed in and confessed His passion, promising that he would be with him in paradise.”

St. Hippolytus. (A.D. 253) “Concerning the catechumen who is killed before baptism because of his witness: let him be buried among the martyrs. [...] When a catechumen is arrested because of his witness and killed before having been baptized, let him be buried with all the martyrs, because he has been baptized in his own blood.” (Canon 19: Concerning Catechumens)

Treatise, Anonymous Third Century Bishop from 255AD: “15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one; 1 John 5:6 — that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. . . . And we believe that the Spirit which was upon them all effected this with an admirable wisdom, by the will of God. Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother's womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe. We are counselled that either we ought duly to maintain the integrity of baptism, or if by chance baptism is given by any one in the name of Jesus Christ, we ought to supplement it, guarding the most holy invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, as we have most abundantly set forth; guarding, moreover, the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men.”

St. Genesius of Arles (A.D. 286), a Comedian, Martyr: see http://www.bartleby.com/210/8/262.html. “The baptism which he received on the stage was no more than a representation of that sacrament, for want of a serious intention of performing the Christian rite; but St. Genesius was baptized in desire, with true contrition, and also in his own blood. … His name occurs in the ancient Roman and African Calendars. Ruinart (2) and Tillemont (3) refer his martyrdom to the year 286”.

St. Rogatien of Nantes (A.D. 287), who were martyred during the reign of Maximien: "There was a young man in Nantes called Donatien. Born into an illustrious family, he was even more illustrious for his faith.... He had received baptism, and fortifies by the holy mysteries, he publicly proclaimed the triumph of Jesus Christ and spread the divine wheat that had been so fruitful in him own heart, in the hearts of the Gentiles around him. He gained his elder brother Rogatien who was still an idolator to the Christian faith at a time of great peril, for it was a period when the profession of Christianity was proscribed. But such considerations did not deter Rogatien from adhering to the truth and committing himself to following Jesus Christ, even unto death. In order to have the strength to undertake this dangerous combat, he sought out the sacrament of baptism with great ardor, but in the absence of a priest (sacerdotis absentia fugitiva) - for the priests had been forced to flee the land - he could only be baptized in his own blood. Rogatien and his brother were placed in the same goal and Rogatien had only one sorrow - that he had not receive baptism. But the faith which he had in God led him to hope that the kiss of his brother would take the place of the sacred bath [baptism]. Donatien, informed of the sorrow of his brother, made the following prayer to God: 'Lord Jesus Christ, with whom desires have the same merit as works, when it is absolutely impossible to fulfill the wishes of someone who is completely devoted to you, as is the case with your servant Rogatien, grant if the judge persists in his obstinacy, that his pure faith may take the place of baptism, and that his blood may become the sacred oils." (Les Petits Bollandistes; “The Bollandists, branch of the Jesuits organized under the initial direction of Father Bolland, [with papal approval] have taken it as their special function to research the lives of the saints and provide official versions of both their acts and writings.”)

St. Victor Braga (A.D. 300), Portugal - A saint who is commemorated in the Breviary on April 11: "St. Victor of Braga, was as yet only a catechumen when he refused to adore an idol and confessed with great courage his belief in Jesus Christ. He was decapitated after many tortures and thus had the good fortune to be baptized in his own blood - this about the year 300 during the reign of Diocletian." (Les Petits Bollandistes)

An unnamed martyr (A.D. 304) killed alongside St. Alban, mentioned in Chapter 7 of St. Bede's History of the English Church and People, written around 720-731: “At the same time was also beheaded the soldier, who before, through the Divine admonition, refused to give the stroke to the holy confessor. Of whom it is apparent, that though he was not regenerated by baptism, yet he was cleansed by the washing of his own blood, and rendered worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven.”

St. Eusebius of Caesaria. (A.D. 341): “After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was Serenus, who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he had received. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, and after him the fourth was Hero. The former of these was as yet a catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of these were beheaded.”

Cyril of Jerusalem, (A.D. 350): "If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom. . . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10).

St. Basil the Great (Doctor, A.D. 379): “And ere now there have been some who in their championship of the true religion have undergone the death for Christ’s sake, not in mere similitude [ie. in the sacrament of baptism; cf. Rom. 6], but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. This I write not to disparage the baptism by water.” (On the Spirit, 36)

St. Basil the Great (Doctor, A.D. 379): “The fortieth martyr [of Sebaste] was baptized in Christ, not by another, but by his own faith; not in water, but in his own blood.” (Homily on the Forty Martyrs) [Note: The 40th martyr was a last minute convert and replacement who was divinely inspired to confess the faith and die a martyr]

St. John Chrysostom, (A.D. 387): "Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2).

St. Ambrose (A.D. 392) - Funeral Oration for Valentinian – De obitu Valentiniani Consolatio (51-52): “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... But if people are absolved in their own blood, then this man’s piety and desire absolved him.”

Rufinus Tyrannius (A.D. 410): “It is written that when the side of Jesus was pierced, ‘He shed thereout blood and water.’ This has a mystical meaning. […] Yet it might be understood of prefiguring the twofold grace of baptism, one that which is given by the baptism of water, the other that which is sought through martyrdom in the outpouring of blood, for both are called baptism.” (On The Creed 23)

St. Jerome (Doctor, A.D. 420): “ The One Baptism is also in water, in the Spirit and in the fire. Of which Our Lord also says: ‘I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized’ (Lk. 12:50) and elsewhere ‘with the baptism wherewith I am baptized you shall be baptized’ (Mk. 10:39.)” (In Eph. 4, PL 26, 496)

St. Augustine (Doctor, A.D. 430): “For whatever unbaptized person die confessing Christ [in martyrdom,] this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” made also an exception in their favour, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape [natural] death [leaving baptism to the last moment,] and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by professing Christ, rather than denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism [of water], in which was remitted even the most enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in those men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breaths where he listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure an hope of pardon!” (City of God against the Pagans, XIII, 7)

Pope St. Leo the Great (A.D. 461): “Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)

St. Prosper of Aquitaine (A.D. 463): “They who without even having received the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for the doing away of sins as if they were washed in the font of Baptism.” (The Faith of Catholics, Msgr. Capel)

Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 524): "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43).

St. Fulgentius also taught: “Hold most firmly and never doubt that, with the exception of those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who has not been converted from his sins through penance and faith, and freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, i.e. through baptism.” (On the Faith to Peter, 43, 73)

We’ll stop right there in the early 6th century, for there is no debate on the truth of this doctrine. None.

RememberGethsemane Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:08 pm

simple Faith wrote:Hi, just popped out of my bunker for a few moments to get a quick smoke so I’ll make this brief as I want to get back to watch my favourite comedy channel (mostholyfamilymonastery.com). In this episode, Brother Peter pretends to be a Catholic, phones up some random guy unexpectedly and tells him he’s going to hell. ’ It’s a bit similar to all the other episodes but is still great fun.

Anyway Columba, the next time you’re using the Penny Catechism to refute Mryan, maybe you could explain the following extract from it: (Maybe RG could also explain)

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?
The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ.

87. Why is the Bishop of Rome the Head of the Church?
The Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church because he is the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ appointed to be the Head of the Church.

88. How do you know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the Church?
I know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the Church because Christ said to him; 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. Matt. 16:18,19

89. What is the Bishop of Rome called?
The Bishop of Rome is called the Pope, which word signifies Father.

90. Is the Pope the Spiritual Father of all Christians?
The Pope is the Spiritual Father of all Christians.

91. Is the Pope the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians?
The Pope is the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, because Christ made St. Peter the Shepherd of the whole flock when he said: 'Feed my lambs, feed my sheep'. He also prayed that his 'faith' might never fail, and commanded him to 'confirm' his brethren. Jn.21:15-17,Lk.22:32

92. Is the Pope infallible?
The Pope is infallible.

93. What do you mean when you say that the Pope is infallible?
When I say that the Pope is infallible, I mean that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole Church.

No doubt Columba you will choose to "rewrite this in an orthodox way" to suit the beliefs of your own private church with it's magisterium of one.
It would also be interesting to compare Columba's responses on the above with RG's.

BTW RG who is the current 'visible' head of your sect? or are you, like Columba, also a member of a headless chicken church?

Hmm I must have missed that episode you refer to Simple, but if a V2 'priest' was to lecture on the reality of hell to anyone he'd probably be severely reprimanded by his bishop or quickly moved to a new parish. And for clear, specific and unequivocal answers to your list of questions please refer to the website of your favourite comedy act. Or, if you want a better laugh phone up some of the 'priests' here in Scotland and ask them even one of those questions and hear them stutter and stammer as they try to figure out what the question actually means.

George Brenner Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:32 pm

Simple Faith,

Go therefore teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Stay strong as I know you are Simple Faith. We have have the word of Jesus and this you most certainly understand.

JMJ,

Your friend

George

simple Faith Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:56 pm

RG, lets just stick with the members of this forum for the moment and I'll leave the Scottish priests and the Dimond brothers for another day. How do you answer the first question on my list from the catechism:

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

RememberGethsemane Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:14 pm

simple Faith wrote:RG, lets just stick with the members of this forum for the moment and I'll leave the Scottish priests and the Dimond brothers for another day. How do you answer the first question on my list from the catechism:

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

Off course, it's MRyan! (at least that's who it is to you lol). Sorry SF I don't do down and around the rabbit holes, Mike thinks this is because it might expose my 'heresy' but in fact it is because I find it as futile as a protestant arguing with a catholic, or a buddhist with a existentialist etc.. Too much energy to reach stalemate mefinds. Columba will play that game with you when he's done dancing though. Stay strong!

simple Faith Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:49 pm

Oh right, sorry RG, I forgot you're only here to hurl insults at the popes and warn about the danger of cigarettes.

RememberGethsemane Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:01 pm

simple Faith wrote:Oh right, sorry RG, I forgot you're only here to hurl insults at the popes and warn about the danger of cigarettes.

Hurl insults hmm.. pot , kettle?

MRyan Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:23 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:
simple Faith wrote:RG, lets just stick with the members of this forum for the moment and I'll leave the Scottish priests and the Dimond brothers for another day. How do you answer the first question on my list from the catechism:

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

Off course, it's MRyan! (at least that's who it is to you lol). Sorry SF I don't do down and around the rabbit holes, Mike thinks this is because it might expose my 'heresy' but in fact it is because I find it as futile as a protestant arguing with a catholic, or a buddhist with a existentialist etc.. Too much energy to reach stalemate mefinds. Columba will play that game with you when he's done dancing though. Stay strong!

Mike has no need to "expose" your heresy, it's already in the open. Neither is Mike worried that you can defend your pernicious brand of sedeism, you' can't; and we both know it. What you can do, however, is lecture columba on the dangers of weak addictive personalities such as your own, and sit on the side-lines waiting for the chance to belch these little mocking projectiles that are directed at the Church and the Supreme Pontiffs; even to claim that Pope Benedict XVI is dead.

Have a smoke and a pint, it will do you a world of good. I was going to say that you need a good confessor, but it would seem that there are no Bishops, no priests and no Church left in Scotland, except the Church of the one (literally) true remnant - guess where that is?

MRyan Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:23 pm

Rituale Romanum

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul V on the Roman Ritual

THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PAUL V on the Roman Ritual

POPE PAUL V

as a Perpetual Memorial

[…]

Given at Rome at St. Mary Major, under the fisherman's seal, on June 17, 1614, in the tenth year of Our Pontificate.

S. Cobellutius.

This Rituale is a Translation of the Rituale Romanum of 1952, revised to accord with all pertinent decrees up to and including the Instruction of 26 September, 1964.

Copyright 1964, Philip T. Weller, S.T.D.

THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY

Nihil obstat: REV. HUGO C. KOEHLER
Censor deputatus

Imprimatur: JOHN P. TREACY, S.T.D.
Bishop of La Crosse

September 1, 1964

DECREE

In preparing a new edition of the Roman Ritual, the Congregation of Sacred Rites decided to introduce a number of additions and revisions, in order to bring it in line with recent legislation, as well as to produce a more orderly arrangement of the whole subject matter. Then, when the work had been studied and finally completed it was submitted to the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, for approval.

On the recommendation of the undersigned Cardinal Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, His Holiness in turn confirmed and approved this edition of the Roman Ritual, and decreed that it be the model to which all future editions of the Roman Ritual are to conform, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

+ CLEMENT CARDINAL MICARA
Bishop of Velletri
Pro-Prefect of the Cong. of Sacred Rites

+ ALPHONSE CARINCI
Archbishop of Seleucia
Secretary

PART II. THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

CHAPTER I: RULES FOR ADMINISTERING BAPTISM

1. That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception.

(http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/04-the-apostolic-constitution-of-pope-paul-v.html)

Jehanne Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:32 pm

MRyan wrote:

Rituale Romanum

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul V on the Roman Ritual

THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PAUL V on the Roman Ritual

POPE PAUL V

as a Perpetual Memorial

[…]

Given at Rome at St. Mary Major, under the fisherman's seal, on June 17, 1614, in the tenth year of Our Pontificate.

S. Cobellutius.

This Rituale is a Translation of the Rituale Romanum of 1952, revised to accord with all pertinent decrees up to and including the Instruction of 26 September, 1964.

Copyright 1964, Philip T. Weller, S.T.D.

THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY

Nihil obstat: REV. HUGO C. KOEHLER
Censor deputatus

Imprimatur: JOHN P. TREACY, S.T.D.
Bishop of La Crosse

September 1, 1964

DECREE

In preparing a new edition of the Roman Ritual, the Congregation of Sacred Rites decided to introduce a number of additions and revisions, in order to bring it in line with recent legislation, as well as to produce a more orderly arrangement of the whole subject matter. Then, when the work had been studied and finally completed it was submitted to the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, for approval.

On the recommendation of the undersigned Cardinal Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, His Holiness in turn confirmed and approved this edition of the Roman Ritual, and decreed that it be the model to which all future editions of the Roman Ritual are to conform, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

+ CLEMENT CARDINAL MICARA
Bishop of Velletri
Pro-Prefect of the Cong. of Sacred Rites

+ ALPHONSE CARINCI
Archbishop of Seleucia
Secretary

PART II. THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

CHAPTER I: RULES FOR ADMINISTERING BAPTISM

1. That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception.

(http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/04-the-apostolic-constitution-of-pope-paul-v.html)

MRyan Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:51 pm

Jehanne added some orange highlight:

1. That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception."

OK, I couldn't agree more, the CCC says the exact same thing; but thanks for the added emphasis.

RememberGethsemane Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:09 am

MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:
simple Faith wrote:RG, lets just stick with the members of this forum for the moment and I'll leave the Scottish priests and the Dimond brothers for another day. How do you answer the first question on my list from the catechism:

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

Off course, it's MRyan! (at least that's who it is to you lol). Sorry SF I don't do down and around the rabbit holes, Mike thinks this is because it might expose my 'heresy' but in fact it is because I find it as futile as a protestant arguing with a catholic, or a buddhist with a existentialist etc.. Too much energy to reach stalemate mefinds. Columba will play that game with you when he's done dancing though. Stay strong!
Mike has no need to "expose" your heresy, it's already in the open. Neither is Mike worried that you can defend your pernicious brand of sedeism, you' can't; and we both know it. What you can do, however, is lecture columba on the dangers of weak addictive personalities such as your own, and sit on the side-lines waiting for the chance to belch these little mocking projectiles that are directed at the Church and the Supreme Pontiffs; even to claim that Pope Benedict XVI is dead.

Have a smoke and a pint, it will do you a world of good. I was going to say that you need a good confessor, but it would seem that there are no Bishops, no priests and no Church left in Scotland, except the Church of the one (literally) true remnant - guess where that is?

No Mike, I don't need a 'good confessor' I need the exact same as everyone else and it does not come from your bad will, arrogance and general all round obnoxiousness. If I wanted to return to the Novus Ordu post-vatican 2 church that I was raised in zealously (and almost destroyed me physically and morally) you, my 'well-meaning' friend would immediately turn me clean off it. I'll have a pint this weekend but I don't smoke anymore as it killed both my parents and my sister prematurely and would have got me too only I stopped when I developed the same symptoms.

columba Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:35 am

SF,
Someone would need to explain it in an orthodox way beacuase the conclusion you draw from it are far beyond what's being stated.

Lets see what a prominent theologian from the Vatican I era has to say on the matter (and apologies if I knock both you and Mike off your pontiffical, all-knowing, no-understanding-but-my-understanding throne).

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly (sounds like a true Irishman) wrote:

We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.

So as we can see SF, stranger things are possible (and probable) than those events which occurred during the Great Wester Schism. Yes, there was a true pope at that time but no one was sure who he was. For all practical purposes the Church was without a clear visible head. But for divine providence, if the situation had not been resolved and had continued even to the present day, it would not be contrary to God's promise to His Church to allow such a situation to persist for an indefinate period of time whether years, decades or centuries. As we know, the situation was eventually resolved, but viewed as a precusor of what is to come during the great apostasy, we should not be surprized if we be left without a head or even worse, instead of having 3 contenders as in the past, we could have one holding office illegitimately with no others opposing him. Smoke that in yor pipe SF.

columba Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:16 am

MRyan wrote:
It is absolutely incredible that someone who professes to be a Catholic who pretends to be well-versed in the disciplines and faith of the Church can twist in such a deliberately malicious manner the words of an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Nowhere does the Catholic Encyclopedia even remotely suggest “that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized”, and in fact, in the very same article it goes into specific and lengthy detail on the established traditions for the baptisms of blood and desire, and even affirms that “The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here [‘the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen’] clearly set forth.”

So the “solitary instance” the Encyclopedia is referring to is the custom of Christian burial (“sacrifices and prayers for catechumens”), which remained as a prohibitive discipline of the Church until 1917. And only someone of a heretical and schismatic mind-set would make the false charge against Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV who, in reversing this long-standing custom of the Church, had “overturn[ed] another canon on a matter of faith or morals”, thereby codifying heresy into canonical law.

Ahh, I see.. The Encyclopedia didn't say:

“IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM: …A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance…”

I must have misread it. I thought it was making the point that there was no tradition of offering prayers or sacrifices for deceased catechumens and that only one solitary instance could be cited and that was an independant act without any magisterial sanction. I'll have to re-read it again.

No matter about Pope Benedict XV permitting the change in the 1917 code, I don't think you can justly implicate Pope St. Pius X. BTW, what reference to prior teaching (as is customary) does it give in the footnotes for canon 1239?

MRyan wrote:
Here are excerpts from the very same article of the “Catholic Encyclopedia” that allegedly “agrees that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized”:

Mike, you can spare me the quotes on baptism of desire contained in the same Catholic Encyclopedia. It already stated that there was no prior tradition that viewed non-baptized catechumens as members of the Church; not even considered internal members as they were refused Christian burial. The fact that it goes on to say about this necessity and that necessity and how we must differentiate one from the other, the Church had no such differentiation applied -prior to 1917- when dealing with the burial of non-baptized catechumens. If anything, it shows the proper necessity the Church always attached to sacramental Baptism, that being, the necessity of means alone.

columba Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:02 am

MRyan wrote:
Remember, this is the same columba who said:

You have indeed uncovered much evidence to affirm that many of the saints and doctors favored baptism of blood as salvivic to the previously unbaptised catechumen (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t480-the-fathers-on-baptism-of-blood)

And if I remember correctly I didn't say I agreed with the evidence you produced as being conclusive. In fact it's the counter evidence (as shown in my previous post) which -in my book- wins the day.

Mike I think we need to adopt a different approach to this subject. The you-quote-I quote thing just ain't working. The problem isn't that of how many Doctors, saints and theologians said this or that; the problem pertains to that God-given attribute of Man, the intellect and the reason why we have it. The intellect is for the purpose of discerning truth from falsehood and being able to make judgments on matters of reason and logic. How could anyone, in any time, ever have converted to the faith if it weren't reasonable to do so. Reason is perfected through faith without losing its function; therfore when two mutually contractory propositions are placed before the intellect it is impossible (for the sane mind) to hold both as being viable at the same time. One must reject the false and hold the true.

To say that one must give assent of mind and will to contradictory teachings is the same as asking one to abandon reason. This is the problem with the new church theology. It contradicts while claiming to be true. Why, they even need to invent new words to sell the contradiction. That's why (and it's reasonable to believe that's why) the Church does in fact make dogmatic statements. Nothing can supercede them for they are irrefutable truths of the faith and are not subject to hermeneutics of change, continuity or reform. It's the other way round; the hermeneutics are subject to the dogmas and can't change their intended meaning. The intended meaning of a dogma can be deduced from the dogmatic statement itself. If it could not be, the dogmatic statement could not bind, but in fact it does bind and binds with anathemas attached. If the dogma needs interpretation then the dogma is deficient. If the dogma is deficient then it is not a truth fallen from heaven but rather a mere construct of the human mind, and indeed, that is the way the dogmas are treated today by high and low alike.

This is the core of the problem and this is what needs to b cleared up ASAP while there's still some faith left on earth. It seems like everyone today is thinking with the mind of a Jew.

simple Faith Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:29 am

Columba, before you go wheeling out Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, (the current pin-up boy of the sede's) could you swap this discussion over to a new thread (I'm not good at that stuff) as it is getting intermingled with the original thread. Also could you perhaps answer the penny catechism question which frightened off RG:
86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

MRyan Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:28 pm

columba wrote:
And if I remember correctly I didn't say I agreed with the evidence you produced as being conclusive. In fact it's the counter evidence (as shown in my previous post) which -in my book- wins the day.

Whether you “agreed” with it or not, you cannot dispute the overwhelming evidence of the Fathers that, in your words, “affirms that many of the saints and doctors favored baptism of blood as salvific to the previously unbaptised catechumen”. So who cares if you don’t “agree” with their “opinion”, the indisputable fact of their unanimity speaks for itself, as even real Feeneyites acknowledge.

Your disagreement is as irrelevant as your attempt at “proving” that the “Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized”. What a pathetic joke. But this is the world you live in.

And your “counter-evidence” was no evidence at all, but just another attempt at removing the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa from their liturgical context of “‘You are outside of Paradise, O catechumen,’ says Gregory to those who would put off their Baptism”, and from the very same context as spoken by his Eastern peers such as St. John Chrysostom who also spoke in the very same manner to catechumens who would intentionally delay their baptisms. You simply choose to take their words as you would like to read them, and ignore what they are actually saying to the catechumens. But, that’s how you work.

Ah, but we keep forgetting that the Fathers, Doctors and saints were endless sources of contradiction, and were opposed one to another on the matter of the baptisms of blood and desire. Yes sir, their disputes were epic; if we could only find some.

columba wrote:

The you-quote-I quote thing just ain't working.

Of course its not working, for you; which is why you always resort to the old (I'm paraphrasing) “what the Fathers, Doctors, saints and the Church say on the baptisms of blood and desire, no matter how unanimous and constant the teaching, can’t stand up to one single defined dogma”, as if they are opposed!

Sheer hubris.

columba wrote:
The problem isn't that of how many Doctors, saints and theologians said this or that; the problem pertains to that God-given attribute of Man, the intellect and the reason why we have it. The intellect is for the purpose of discerning truth from falsehood and being able to make judgments on matters of reason and logic. How could anyone, in any time, ever have converted to the faith if it weren't reasonable to do so. Reason is perfected through faith without losing its function; therfore when two mutually contractory propositions are placed before the intellect it is impossible (for the sane mind) to hold both as being viable at the same time. One must reject the false and hold the true.

Oh please, let me put my Irish waders on.

So let's make sure we've got this right. The “intellect and the reason” tell us that the baptisms of blood and desire are heresies against the once defined dogma of water baptism; the “intellect and the reason” tell us that “we must reject the false” doctrine of the Fathers, the Scholastics, the Manualists, the saints, and the universal moral consensus of theologians; the “intellect and the reason” tell us that we must reject the false doctrine as it is presented in the Catechisms of Trent, as it is presented in the official commentaries of Rheims, Douhay and Haydock, as it presented in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of canon law; as it is presented in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, as it is presented in the Letters of the Popes Leo the Great, Innocent II, Innocent III and Pius XII; and as it is presented in the documents of VCII, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And that’s what the “intellect and reason”, oh, and “logic”, tell us, right, columba?

columba wrote:
It seems like everyone today is thinking with the mind of a Jew.

Form the stand point of a veil of ignorance that prevents them from seeing the truth with the light of faith, you do indeed have a lot in common with your Jewish brethren.

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:34 am

Hey Columba, that 'piece of work' called the Jews your brethren, I'd personally take offense to that and happily bust his head open if I had the opportunity right now.

Jehanne Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:56 am

A lot of Jews are atheist, including, the current president of American Atheists, David Silverman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Silverman_%28activist%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_atheists

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:09 am

Jehanne wrote:A lot of Jews are atheist, including, the current president of American Atheists, David Silverman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Silverman_%28activist%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_atheists

Thank you Jehanne, I didn't realise that about Silverman etc. You are a very knowledgable person and I always read your posts. Thank you for taking the time to post here, and I offered Aves for your father, please say one back for me.

Jehanne Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:17 am

I will. Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail, and that's what matters; nothing else.

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:25 am

Jehanne wrote:I will. Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail, and that's what matters; nothing else.

Thank you again Jehanne, your words mean a lot.

columba Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:44 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Hey Columba, that 'piece of work' called the Jews your brethren, I'd personally take offense to that and happily bust his head open if I had the opportunity right now.

"And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him.
And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem.
And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?
And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.
The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town." (Luke 9:53-56)

RG,
Like Jehanne, I have no doubts that the truth will prevail. The Lord has been, and still continues to be, exceedingly patient with me. If He is to continue being patient with me then I in turn must be patient with others. All retribution belongs to the Lord and His ways are not our ways. However, I don't wish retribution on anyone nor would I wish any perceived injustice against me to be the cause of loss for another. Mike's soul, SF's soul, your soul and my soul are of equal value in the eyes of God. If Mike and SF are wrong, they need to repent, not to me but to God. If I am wrong then I too need to repent.

There are reasons why we hold the positions we hold. Some may have much to loose or give up in this world by changing their stance. It could be job, friends, family members, their TV, Sunday shopping trips, their local church building, a worldly comfort or two, fear of physical or emotional pain, fear of being an outcast; in short, its not gonna be easy for anyone, but the tme to choose is not somewhere down the road, it's here and now.

As for me, I can't ignore that there are existing today in the world two churches,; one with a large "C" and one with a small. The small "c" is distinguishable by many of its traits but overwhelmingly so by its fruits. I don't feel I need to list these as they are known to all but can be summed up in one word, "New." New sacraments, new buildings, new ministeries, new theology, "new springtime," "new evangelization," new orientation, new catechism, new bible, new expression, new ecuminism; in short; New church.

The Church (with a large C) on the other hand, is the Church as it always was, which in most cases happens to be the counter of the new. If a pope can be pope both of the new church and the old, then I guess he is the Pope. It so happens though, that the Church with the large "C" comes under much criticism from the small "c" and vice versa, but the pope sides with the new church against the true Church to the extent that the true Church is often anathematized and its members excommunicated. It seems like the pope will only accept the true Church if it converts and becomes the new church. This is why his legitimacy is suspect.

Those who say there is no such distinction are either blind, or worse, they actually see the contraiction but choose to ignore it. To add to the equation, we have a pope who fraternizes with the Church's perenial enemy, not to convert it but to appease it and allow it to have influence over her own policies and direction. If this is not blatant auto destruction, then tell me what is? But we know for sure that the True Church will never be overcome. The new church is already dying. Its semiaries are empty, many of its ministers are in jail or soon will be, not for their beliefs but for their crimes against the innocent, their churches are emptying by the week, the majority of its members no longer believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and would accept any form of false worship proposed to them if they could have it without inconveniencing their worldly ambitions. Prime candidates I reckon for a dogmaless, one world church of Satan.

"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

If he does, it most likely will be in the catacombs.

George Brenner Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:56 pm

Columba,

Continue to pray, reflect and be open to the grace of God as I believe that you will. The past is as much a part of the present, even as one may struggle with pastoral implementation and reverence. We must be part of the cure by setting a good example. Attacks on the Church and private interpretation can only hurt Jesus. No one has condoned abuse, lack of reverence and discipline that was remiss or worse. Leave the accountability to God and Church. We must fight but not hurt the very essence of what we fight for by reducing our Faith to an Ark left alone by Jesus with no visible head or direction. Jesus promised us that the Church and Peter's Faith would not fail.

not so long ago:

Mortalium Animos - Pope Pius XI (1928)

To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.
Never perhaps in the past have we seen, as we see in these our own times, the minds of men so occupied by the desire both of strengthening and of extending to the common welfare of human society that fraternal relationship which binds and unites us together, and which is a consequence of our common origin and nature. For since the nations do not yet fully enjoy the fruits of peace -- indeed rather do old and new disagreements in various places break forth into sedition and civic strife -- and since on the other hand many disputes which concern the tranquillity and prosperity of nations cannot be settled without the active concurrence and help of those who rule the States and promote their interests, it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.
6. We were created by God, the Creator of the universe, in order that we might know Him and serve Him; our Author therefore has a perfect right to our service. God might, indeed, have prescribed for man's government only the natural law, which, in His creation, He imprinted on his soul, and have regulated the progress of that same law by His ordinary providence; but He preferred rather to impose precepts, which we were to obey, and in the course of time, namely from the beginnings of the human race until the coming and preaching of Jesus Christ, He Himself taught man the duties which a rational creature owes to its Creator: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son."[3] From which it follows that there can be no true religion other than that which is founded on the revealed word of God: which revelation, begun from the beginning and continued under the Old Law, Christ Jesus Himself under the New Law perfected. Now, if God has spoken (and it is historically certain that He has truly spoken), all must see that it is man's duty to believe absolutely God's revelation and to obey implicitly His commands; that we might rightly do both, for the glory of God and our own salvation, the Only-begotten Son of God founded His Church on earth. Further, We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]
7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God,"[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."[19] How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26]
12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,"[27] not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[30]
13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.

REFERENCES:
· 1. John xvii, 21.
· 2. John xiii, 35.
· 3. Heb. i, I seq.
· 4. Matt. xvi, 18 seq; Luke xxii, 32; John xxi, 15-17.
· 5. Mark xvi, 15.
· 6. John iii, 5; vi, 48-59; xx, 22 seq; cf. Matt. xviii, 18, etc.
· 7. Matt. xiii.
· 8. cf. Matt. xvi, 18.
· 9. John x, 16.
· 10. John xxi, 15-17.
· 11. Matt. xxviii, 19.
· 12. Matt. xxviii, 20.
· 13. Matt. xvi, 18.
· 14. John xvii, 21; x, 16.
· 15. John xvi, 13.
· 16. Acts x,41.
· 17. Mark xvi, 16.
· 18. 11 John 10.
· 19. Cf. I Tim. ii, 15.
· 20. De Cath. Ecclesiae unitate, 6.
· 21. Ibid.
· 22. I Cor. xii, 12.
· 23. Eph. Iv, 16.

I have spent hours the last few weeks listening to EWTN and Cardinal Rigali explain in great detail the instructions and great pains on how we were to implement the teachings of Vatican II. The Church is blameless. As has been the case throughout history it all comes down to good versus evil. The devil would like nothing better than for us to take out our anger and turn on the Church itself or worse start our not intended but real hybrid false religion that is not Catholic. If the Catholic Church had to rely on our own personal leadership to remedy the crisis in the Church, we probably would have had a visit from an angel announcing our mission. Do no confuse the protected presence of our Church with the simultaneous and horrific presence of Satan and all his evil spirits to destroy all that is good and holy.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:29 pm

Jehanne wrote:Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail, and that's what matters; nothing else.

Jehanne, would you mind tell me just what in the world you are talking about with that meaningless cliche? Are you suggesting that the Vicar of Christ is not telling the truth?

Do you realize that you were addressing your comments to a Church and pope-mocking sedevacantist and telling him to "Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail"?

And what "Truth" is that?

MRyan Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:37 pm

RG wrote:

Hey Columba, that 'piece of work' called the Jews your brethren, I'd personally take offense to that and happily bust his head open if I had the opportunity right now.

You're calling me a piece of work Mike? Funny I think the same of you. I WOULD HAPPILY NAIL YOU TO A TREE FOR YOUR HERESY AS YOUR ANCESTORS DONE TO MY BLESSED SAVIOUR

What a piece of work.

Notice he cannot respond to my post on VCI vs. his discredited and heretical private revelation.

Now the bloviating bombastic blowhard thinks he’s a tough guy; anonymously hiding behind his computer while issuing threats of physical violence from 3000 miles away.

What a piece of work.

What did I tell you about taking your meds?

I know, I know, don't encourage him!

Jehanne Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail, and that's what matters; nothing else.
Jehanne, would you mind tell me just what in the world you are talking about with that meaningless cliche? Are you suggesting that the Vicar of Christ is not telling the truth?

Do you realize that you were addressing your comments to a Church and pope-mocking sedevacantist and telling him to "Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail"?

And what "Truth" is that?

The Truth is, Mike, that the Church speaks with varying levels of authority and that there are disagreements amongst theologians and the faithful about a whole host of issues, as well as Popes who appear at times to be "changing their minds." The Truth is, that in Paradise, all that there is for us to know will be known without contradiction and without ambiguity. Personally, I don't think that Vatican II expressed the Truth fully and coherently. Even Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are "contradictory," and one thing that we do know is that Truth cannot contradict itself.

As I have said, "Time and Eternity will tell."

MRyan Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:16 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail, and that's what matters; nothing else.
Jehanne, would you mind tell me just what in the world you are talking about with that meaningless cliche? Are you suggesting that the Vicar of Christ is not telling the truth?

Do you realize that you were addressing your comments to a Church and pope-mocking sedevacantist and telling him to "Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail"?

And what "Truth" is that?

The Truth is, Mike, that the Church speaks with varying levels of authority and that there are disagreements amongst theologians and the faithful about a whole host of issues, as well as Popes who appear at times to be "changing their minds." The Truth is, that in Paradise, all that there is for us to know will be known without contradiction and without ambiguity. Personally, I don't think that Vatican II expressed the Truth fully and coherently. Even Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are "contradictory," and one thing that we do know is that Truth cannot contradict itself.

As I have said, "Time and Eternity will tell."

That’s what I thought, meaningless cliché’s and innuendos against a Church that you suggest cannot speak the truth, or speaks falsely.

The truth is, every level of magisterial teaching requires at least the submission of intellect and will. The truth is, if theologians disagree on a specific matter, its is not on a matter of faith or morals that has already been settled, or suggests that the Magisterium is in error (notwithstanding the smarter than the Church rad-trads).

If you wish to follow the dissenters rather than trust in the Magisterium, go right ahead. Pope Benedict XVI has some choice words for you.

And, “Pope Benedict XVI is” NOT “on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory,’ and one thing that we do know is that Truth cannot contradict itself.”

You simply made it up, for Pope Benedict never said any such thing, and in fact said just the opposite. Truth cannot contradict itself, and you accuse Pope Benedict XVI of saying Truth has contradicted itself in the documents of VCII.

I’m calling you out, calling your bluff. So prove your accusation.

The truth is, you’re a shameless huckster.

When the Pope, through his act of official promulgation, makes his own a conciliar decree that teaches a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, then once again it is an obvious exercise of his charism of infallibility.

Unfortunately, Traditionalists have trouble with the idea that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is infallible, or that Vatican II’s insistence that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church is infallible. They have a tendency to suggest that we can ignore these particular magisterial statements because they do not accord with their understanding of certain past statements, which past statements they decidedly prefer. As I have already said, this is nothing more than the “hermeneutic of rupture” in reverse—the hermeneutic of rupture applied in the less common direction. It is equally dangerous, damaging and false. As Benedict XVI insists, the proper “hermeneutic of continuity” will find an understanding of the Church’s teaching on any given issue that respects the truth of all the Magisterial teachings on that issue, including those of Vatican II and beyond. (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)

Cardinal Ratzinger (Letter to Lefebvre, 1982):

“In the third paragraph you speak of "statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church." Then you list three texts of the Council incompatible, according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an "etc." Here your position even more radical… But you cannot assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you are DEEPLY DEPARTING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH; the faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City.”

Jehanne Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:21 am

Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Verbum

Scholarly opinion

The schema, or draft document, prepared for the first council session (October–December 1962) reflected the conservative theology of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani. Pope John intervened directly to promote instead the preparation of a new draft which was assigned to a mixed commission of conservatives and progressives, and it was this on which the final document was based.[1]

Joseph Ratzinger, later elected pope, identified three overall motifs in Dei Verbum: (1) the new view of the phenomenon of tradition;[2] (2) the theological problem of the application of critical historical methods to the interpretation of Scripture;[3] and (3) the biblical movement that had been growing from the turn of the twentieth century.[4]

Regarding article 1 of the preface of Dei Verbum, Joseph Ratzinger writes, "The brief form of the Preface and the barely concealed illogicalities that it contains betray clearly the confusion from which it has emerged."[5]

Biblical infallibility and inerrancy

The Catechism now states that "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."[6]

There was a controversy during the Council on whether the Roman Catholic Church taught biblical infallibility or biblical inerrancy.[7] Some have interpreted Dei Verbum as teaching the infallibility position, while others note that the conciliar document often quotes previous documents such as Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu that clearly teach inerrancy.[8]

Dei Verbum has sometimes been compared to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which expounds similar teachings, characteristic of many evangelical Protestants.

MRyan Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:33 am

Jehanne, I asked you to show us where “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory’” with “Truth” which “cannot contradict itself.”

I’m still waiting. All you’ve done is provide “proof” of what Fr. Most explains in “THE LIVING GOD”:

(a)The debates at Vatican II on Dei Verbum were long and bitter. (Cf. H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Herder & Herder 1969, vol III -- various authors) The first draft by the Theological Commission, November 1962, was rejected. The majority wanted it rewritten. The vote was less than 2/3 but John XXIII overrode, called for rewriting. Rewritten version was ready for second session, 1963. Brought up for more discussion and votes at 3rd session, 1964. More changes. Some last minute changes suggested by Paul VI. Finally approved by almost unanimous vote on Nov. 18, 1964.

(b)Three questions were especially hot: 1) Tradition: What is it in itself? Relation of Scripture & Tradition: one or two sources? 2) Inerrancy 3) Historicity of the Gospels.

The preface to DV said that the Council "adhering to the steps of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, intends to propose the true doctrine about divine revelation and about its transmission." But Joseph Ratzinger (In Vorgrimler, p.167) said: "The brief form of the Preface and the barely concealed illogicalities that it contains betray the confusion from which it has emerged."

So we have is what’s called “context”, Jehanne, and nowhere does Cardinal Ratzinger suggest that because “The debates at Vatican II on Dei Verbum were long and bitter”, and thus, “The brief form of the Preface and the barely concealed illogicalities that it contains betray the confusion from which it has emerged”, it follows that Dei Verbum “contradicted Truth”, as you allege. This is just one more of your appalling logical fallacies. Fr. Most provides some additional context when he writes:

(c) Revelation of a Person and of Doctrines: There was a tendency to say (Ratzinger, p.171): "Instead of the legalistic view that sees revelation largely as the issuing of divine decrees, we have a sacramental view." That is, God has revealed Himself in Christ - true - but tends to leave out the fact that He also has revealed specific truths, many by the mouth of Christ.

... There was a striving for unclarity at Vatican II - some wanted to say, to please Protestants, that there is only one source. The final statement is in DV 9: "Both, coming from the one Divine source coalesce as it were into one and tend to the same end." This is unfortunate lack of clarity. It really means: There is only one source, God. But what He reveals is found in two places, Scripture and Tradition. For Tradition contains things not found in Scripture, at least not clearly, e.g., the Immaculate Conception. (©Copyright, 1993 by William G. Most; http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/REV601.TXT)

Again, Jehanne, show us where “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory,’” with “Truth” which “cannot contradict itself.”

Good luck with that.

Jehanne Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:50 am

I guess it depends on how one wishes to interpret the phrase "concealed illogicalities". Per Merriam Webster:

il·log·i·cal adjective \-ji-kəl\

Definition of ILLOGICAL
1
: not observing the principles of logic <an illogical argument>
2
: devoid of logic : senseless <illogical policies>
— il·log·i·cal·i·ty noun
— il·log·i·cal·ly adverb
— il·log·i·cal·ness noun
See illogical defined for English-language learners »
See illogical defined for kids »
Examples of ILLOGICAL
It is illogical to think that things will change on their own.
<the illogical claim that playing basketball makes people taller because one sees so many tall players>
First Known Use of ILLOGICAL
1588
Related to ILLOGICAL
Synonyms: fallacious, illegitimate, inconsequent, inconsequential, invalid, irrational, nonrational, unreasonable, unreasoning, unsound, weak
Antonyms: logical, rational, reasonable, sound, valid, well-founded, well-grounded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogical

Is something which is "illogical" self-contradictory? I would say so.

columba Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
And, “Pope Benedict XVI is” NOT “on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory,’ and one thing that we do know is that Truth cannot contradict itself.”

No; but Card Ratzinger is, and since becoming pope has never revised his opinion.

"If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus ...."

And even there we see the employment of ambiguous language. What is meant by the words "kind of?" It's either a counter syllabus or it's not. If it is a counter syllabus then he is claiming that "truth can contradict itself." Absurd.

MRyan wrote:
You simply made it up, for Pope Benedict never said any such thing, and in fact said just the opposite. Truth cannot contradict itself, and you accuse Pope Benedict XVI of saying Truth has contradicted itself in the documents of VCII.

This is your reply to Jehanne and I just showed you where truth -which does not contradict itself- is being contradicted, ergo, Gaudium et Spes contradicts truth ergo, Gaudium et Spes (according to card Ratzinge) is false. If not, the Syllabus of Errors is false.

MRyan wrote:
When the Pope, through his act of official promulgation, makes his own a conciliar decree that teaches a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, then once again it is an obvious exercise of his charism of infallibility.
(http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)

This is not true. What makes a decree infallible is when the pope promulgates that decree universally using language that makes clear he is binding the whole Church universally to its acceptance.

MRyan wrote:
Unfortunately, Traditionalists have trouble with the idea that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is infallible, or that Vatican II’s insistence that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church is infallible. They have a tendency to suggest that we can ignore these particular magisterial statements because they do not accord with their understanding of certain past statements, which past statements they decidedly prefer. (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)

More derogatory false rheteric against traditionalism. No one "decidedly prefers" one teaching over another. What one "decidedly prefers" is the truth over falsehood. Would it bother me for example, if the Church constantly, throughout her history, taught that all religions can be salvific even while rejecting Christ, I would be delighted with that teaching. The reason I am not delighted with that teaching is for the simple reason that God Himself has rejected it as false and, as He knows best, I prefer His truth over my human preferrence.

MRyan wrote:
Benedict XVI insists, the proper “hermeneutic of continuity” will find an understanding of the Church’s teaching on any given issue that respects the truth of all the Magisterial teachings on that issue, including those of Vatican II and beyond.
(http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)

Benedict XVI, contrary to the above claim, does NOT respect ALL Magisterial teachings equally on any issue; he has a decided preference for the VII teachings, even when they go "counter" (his own word) to previous Magisterial teachings.

MRyan wrote:
Then you list three texts of the Council incompatible, according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an "etc."
(Cardinal Ratzinger: Letter to Lefebvre, 1982)

It ciould be easily decduced why Archbishop Lefebvre used "etc." The amount of incompatabilities contained in the conciliar documents would have been too long to list; which if he had been given a fair hearing he could have expounded upon, which of course he wasn't.

MRyan wrote:
You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you are DEEPLY DEPARTING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH; the faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City.”
(Cardinal Ratzinger: Letter to Lefebvre, 1982)

This is what was up for discussion. Card Ratzinger had made up his mind that the good bishop was going to reject all explanations when in fact he was seeking explanations that would render the conciliar documents compatable with constant Church teaching on any given matter of faith. Of course no such compatability existed, therefore no talks could be permitted.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne, I asked you to show us where “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory’” with “Truth” which “cannot contradict itself.”

"If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus ...."

There ya go Mike; You have it in his own words.

MRyan wrote:
Again, Jehanne, show us where “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory,’” with “Truth” which “cannot contradict itself.”

Good luck with that.

Luck has no part to play in it. “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that at least one document of Vatican is ‘contradictory,’” (counter) to a past pre-VatII document.

MRyan Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:29 pm

Jehanne,

You can forget your Merriam Webster dictionary, for you pick and choose your definitions like you do your fallacious accusations. There is another definition (thesaurus) that says “illogical - lacking orderly continuity”, and, knowing the context and the explanation given by Cardinal Ratzinger, this is the more logical definition. Besides, “barely concealed illogicalities” does not mean it was illogical per se, but only that the lack of orderly continuity was “barely concealed” by its less than precise language.

“The brief form of the Preface and the barely concealed illogicalities that it contains betray the confusion from which it has emerged" is explained in more detail a few pages later where Cardinal Ratzinger says: "‘Instead of the legalistic view that sees revelation largely as the issuing of divine decrees, we have a sacramental view.’ That is, God has revealed Himself in Christ - true - but tends to leave out the fact that He also has revealed specific truths, many by the mouth of Christ.”

That is the type of “barely concealed illogicalities” he is referring to, where a highly contentious debate resulted in several instances of less than precise, but never contradictory (to Truth), language.

And, of course, you simply ignore the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger had already addressed these spurious and “radical” accusations of "statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church."

Cardinal Ratzinger (Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1982):

“In the third paragraph you speak of "statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church." Then you list three texts of the Council incompatible, according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an "etc." Here your position even more radical… But you cannot assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you are DEEPLY DEPARTING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH; the faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City.”

Ah, but Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope BXVI is a double-tongued “modernist”, isn’t that right, Jehanne?

You can’t back up your specious charge against pope BXVI, but that’s OK, say whatever you please, none of this matters, so long as your version of “Truth” prevails.

MRyan Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:07 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
And, “Pope Benedict XVI is” NOT “on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory,’ and one thing that we do know is that Truth cannot contradict itself.”
No; but Card Ratzinger is, and since becoming pope has never revised his opinion.

That’s right, and his “opinion” is not what Jehanne says it is. His “opinion” is that there is NO contradiction.

columba wrote:
"If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus ...."

And even there we see the employment of ambiguous language. What is meant by the words "kind of?" It's either a counter syllabus or it's not. If it is a counter syllabus then he is claiming that "truth can contradict itself." Absurd.

No, you are being “absurd”. You simply ignore the context and truth of what is meant by “counter-Syllabus”, which does not mean “counter” to irreformable Traditions or to immutable doctrines, but counter to policies, disciplines and approaches that are no longer suitable or realistic; as well as a development in doctrine concerning certain aspects of Church-state relations.

Your kindergarten theology, appalling ecclesiology and hubris are getting quite stale.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
You simply made it up, for Pope Benedict never said any such thing, and in fact said just the opposite. Truth cannot contradict itself, and you accuse Pope Benedict XVI of saying Truth has contradicted itself in the documents of VCII.
This is your reply to Jehanne and I just showed you where truth -which does not contradict itself- is being contradicted, ergo, Gaudium et Spes contradicts truth ergo, Gaudium et Spes (according to card Ratzinge) is false. If not, the Syllabus of Errors is false.

You have shown us exactly nothing, except how arrogant hubris works.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
“When the Pope, through his act of official promulgation, makes his own a conciliar decree that teaches a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, then once again it is an obvious exercise of his charism of infallibility.”
(http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)
This is not true. What makes a decree infallible is when the pope promulgates that decree universally using language that makes clear he is binding the whole Church universally to its acceptance.

No, it is absolutely true. The very nature of an Ecumenical Vatican Council ensures that whenever matters of faith and morals are proposed to the whole Church universally, “it is an obvious exercise of his charism of infallibility”. The Pope does not have to propose extraordinary ex cathedra definitions in order to teach infallibly, for “he who hears you, hears Me” assures the pope of the divine promise of the protection of the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that every matter of faith and morals is immune from a flawed presentation, but only that the doctrine itself cannot be false.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
“Unfortunately, Traditionalists have trouble with the idea that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is infallible, or that Vatican II’s insistence that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church is infallible. They have a tendency to suggest that we can ignore these particular magisterial statements because they do not accord with their understanding of certain past statements, which past statements they decidedly prefer.” (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)
More derogatory false rheteric against traditionalism. No one "decidedly prefers" one teaching over another. What one "decidedly prefers" is the truth over falsehood. Would it bother me for example, if the Church constantly, throughout her history, taught that all religions can be salvific even while rejecting Christ, I would be delighted with that teaching. The reason I am not delighted with that teaching is for the simple reason that God Himself has rejected it as false and, as He knows best, I prefer His truth over my human preferrence.

The in-your-face arrogance and hubris of a deluded and heretical layman is actually a spectacle, especially when it accuses the Magisterium of teaching “falsehood over truth”.

The Church has NEVER taught that “all religions can be salvific even while rejecting Christ”, and your gross characterization of the actual teachings of the Church is actually quite childish, and malicious, for it has to be intentional.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
“Benedict XVI insists, the proper ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ will find an understanding of the Church’s teaching on any given issue that respects the truth of all the Magisterial teachings on that issue, including those of Vatican II and beyond.”
(http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296)
Benedict XVI, contrary to the above claim, does NOT respect ALL Magisterial teachings equally on any issue; he has a decided preference for the VII teachings, even when they go "counter" (his own word) to previous Magisterial teachings.

You are such a purveyor of lies. Your straddle-the-fence brand of sedeism is worse than sedeism itself. The Church’s most harmful enemies are those who pretend to be in communion with the cardboard cutout of the Pope (used as a dart-board), while treating him with derision and contempt.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
“Then you list three texts of the Council incompatible, according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an ‘etc.’"
(Cardinal Ratzinger: Letter to Lefebvre, 1982)
It ciould be easily decduced why Archbishop Lefebvre used "etc." The amount of incompatabilities contained in the conciliar documents would have been too long to list; which if he had been given a fair hearing he could have expounded upon, which of course he wasn't.

He was given an on-going “hearing”, and decided that ipso facto excommunication for schism (that is a joke to most of the SSPX, who never recognized Pope JPII’s Primacy of jurisdiction as sole arbiter of the law) was better than dealing with Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope, you know, those “modernists”.

It’s a simple matter, really; one is either with Christ, meaning with His true Vicar, or one isn’t. There is no middle ground that leaves room for accusations of heresy, false doctrines, “two Churches”, “half a-pope” theories, “Rome [the Holy See] will lose the faith … blah, blah, blah), and private interpretations.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you are DEEPLY DEPARTING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH; the faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City.”
(Cardinal Ratzinger: Letter to Lefebvre, 1982)
This is what was up for discussion. Card Ratzinger had made up his mind that the good bishop was going to reject all explanations when in fact he was seeking explanations that would render the conciliar documents compatable with constant Church teaching on any given matter of faith. Of course no such compatability existed, therefore no talks could be permitted.

“Of course no such compatability existed, therefore no talks could be permitted”. No words are necessary.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne, I asked you to show us where “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory’” with “Truth” which “cannot contradict itself.”
"If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus ...."

There ya go Mike; You have it in his own words.

Words you wrench out of context, because there is a limit to your ability to process information, recognize distinctions and approach these issues with good-will towards the Pope and the Church. Or, its just a matter of intellectual laziness.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Again, Jehanne, show us where “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that the documents of Vatican II are ‘contradictory,’” with “Truth” which “cannot contradict itself.”

Good luck with that.
Luck has no part to play in it. “Pope Benedict XVI is on record as saying that at least one document of Vatican is ‘contradictory,’” (counter) to a past pre-VatII document.

Lies. “Counter” does NOT mean “counter to Truth”.

columba Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:34 pm

Ok Mike; you're claiming the Syllabus of Errors was historically conditioned (or at least some of its condemnations were) and therefore these can be dismissed as irrelevant to today's more intellectually superior, more morally enlightened modern world. But let's take a look and see if your claim holds any water.

Unless you are intentionally ignoring the facts or just being “intellectually lazy,” you can't fail to acknowledge as fact that what is taking place in new church is counter to those articles in the Syllabus which are not historically conditioned; such as:

The “separated churches” can be united into a structure consisting of various incompatible “faith communities” under the authority of the pope. Condemned

A unity of “fraternal charity” without unity of faith. Condemned.

For the sake of achieving a much sought after visible unity (which the true Church already possess) which since the reformation is lacking. Condemned.

In order to combat rampant secularism and materialism which threatens all religions. Condemned.

Which one of these Vat II ideologies currently being pursued is a reformable aspect of the Syllabus of Errors?

A cursory reading of the Masonic or Communist agenda should be enough to convince you of what the Syllabus was protecting the Church from. Without its abrogation (by Paul VI) the Church's enemies could not have proceeded with their plan of destruction of the Church. Of course we know they won't ultimately succeed but the “counter syllabus” has given them a push start and done so by overturning those non-reformable articles of faith in the Syllabus of Errors.

MRyan Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:55 pm

columba wrote:

Ok Mike; you're claiming the Syllabus of Errors was historically conditioned (or at least some of its condemnations were) and therefore these can be dismissed as irrelevant to today's more intellectually superior, more morally enlightened modern world. But let's take a look and see if your claim holds any water.

I am not claiming that all of the condemned errors of the Syllabus are “historically conditioned”, and neither did I suggest that the Syllabus “can be dismissed as 'irrelevant'”, so why do you say things that are factually incorrect?

Columba, you should be held accountable for the following accusations of heresy, and I want you to provide chapter and verse, both for the actual condemned error as it is written in the Syllabus (with the accompanying reference to the source document), as well as the specific word-for-word teachings of VCII or the CDF that you allege are “counter” to the Syllabus “which are not historically conditioned”.

In other words, stop being “intellectually lazy” and provide the specific errors of the Church against specific Syllabus condemned errors - chapter and verse, that provide the context for your incomplete citations:

The “separated churches” can be united into a structure consisting of various incompatible “faith communities” under the authority of the pope. Condemned

A unity of “fraternal charity” without unity of faith. Condemned.

For the sake of achieving a much sought after visible unity (which the true Church already possess) which since the reformation is lacking. Condemned.

In order to combat rampant secularism and materialism which threatens all religions. Condemned.

Get to work.

Forum Janitor Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:38 pm

When the Pope was a Peritus, he described the Council as a Counter Syllabus.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

Sponsored content