Has the Church a Visible Head on Earth.

columba Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:42 pm

As you requested SF, I've moved the topic here.

SimpleFaith wrote:
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?

SF, I answered your question concerning #86 in the Penny Catechism.
The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ.

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was not a sedevacantist BTW. The term wasn't even invented then. The reason His quote is used by the sede's is for the purpose of showing that their position is not against theological opinion. If you deny the possibilty that the Church could be without a visible head for an indeterminate period of time then you are not infalible in your claim. From the example of the Western Schism it is a fact that there was for a long period of time no clear visible head of the Church on earth. Some people lived and died without ever knowing who the real pope was. Even the real pope could not be sure he was the real pope. It was an authority other than the pope which finally determined who would be the pope and this was done by electing a new pope at the Council of Constance.

If the true pope among three visible Heads could not be determinded, then who's to say that one visble head must necessarily be pope. No one would dispute the legitimacy of a single head if it weren't for the direction he was leading the Church. There's more than one way of answering the question of legitimacy. A good starting point would be; does the claimant profess the faith of the apostles? In the Great Western Schism they didn't have this deciding mechanism as a resolution to the crisis as all the claimants were orthodox in faith. I dare say if one of them had gone and prayed at a synagogue he would have been the first to be excluded from the race.

simple Faith Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:29 pm

Columba, before I respond to your quotes from Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly could you first clarify your answer at the start of your last post where you said, "The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ."

Do you accept that the current Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ the visible Head on earth?

RememberGethsemane Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:32 pm

simple Faith wrote:Columba, before I respond to your quotes from Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly could you first clarify your answer at the start of your last post where you said, "The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ."

Do you accept that the current Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ the visible Head on earth?

Don't you realise that your current loaded question does not make any sense SF? You are implying the answer within the question. Shouldn't the question be 'Do you reckon that Josef Ratzinger IS the current legitimate Bishop of Rome?' Has the Church a Visible Head on Earth. 67245

Has the Church a Visible Head on Earth. 67245

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:56 am

No RG, the question I'm asking is a very simple one straight from the penny catechism; it didn't require rewriting when first published and doesn't require rewriting now.

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

Columba replied with the correct answer: "The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ."

However he replies with an answer he obviously either doesn't believe or doubts as he then immediately begins to present 'evidence' to disprove his own answer.

I will respond to his Fr O'Reilly quotes when he clearly states his position on whether or not the Church has a visible head.

What about yourself RG, without rewriting the question, how do YOU answer?

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:47 am

simple Faith wrote:No RG, the question I'm asking is a very simple one straight from the penny catechism; it didn't require rewriting when first published and doesn't require rewriting now.

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

Columba replied with the correct answer: "The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ."

However he replies with an answer he obviously either doesn't believe or doubts as he then immediately begins to present 'evidence' to disprove his own answer.

I will respond to his Fr O'Reilly quotes when he clearly states his position on whether or not the Church has a visible head.

What about yourself RG, without rewriting the question, how do YOU answer?

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

OK SF I am going to answer that question as honestly and as straight forward as I can: As far as I am concerned I do not see a visible head of The Church. If that makes me a bad mad outcast in yours, and your daddy Mike's, opinion then so be it.

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:05 am

Shall I hop on that deplorable sede forum now SF and keep my mouth shut tight for you and Mike while you castigate those that intrinsically, and by the very nature of God Our Father's wisdom He ingrained in us naturally, speak THE TRUTH, as unsavoury as it may be to your sensitive little ears? And then you and Mike can be the only 2 left on this forum and stroke each others egos' and talk about what martyrs you both are for the True Church.

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:22 am

OK RG, because YOU do not see a visible head does it therefore follow that the Church does not have a visible head?
Catholic dogma assures us that the Church will always have a permanent and visible head in the person of the Pope.
If you do not see the visible head in the Bishop of Rome, where then is this visible head that has been promised?

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:32 am

simple Faith wrote:OK RG, because YOU do not see a visible head does it therefore follow that the Church does not have a visible head?
Catholic dogma assures us that the Church will always have a permanent and visible head in the person of the Pope.
If you do not see the visible head in the Bishop of Rome, where then is this visible head that has been promised?

#

Why on earth are you so hung up on a 'visible head' like that solves all the problems ?? Have you any other route to go? If you have a look at the prophecies of the saints and Our Blessed Mother, they do not bang on about a 'visible head' they sincerely warn us about a false apostate church, you want to follow it SF then you go for it! but to me it just means you have zero intuition and love for God in your heart. If you loved God you would instinctively know when His words and promises are being
mocked by the ones He entrusted them to. Shame on you if you do not recognise that! SHAME ON YOU !

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:00 am

St. John the Baptist jumped in the womb of his mother Elizabeth when The Virgin told her of her encounter with the Angel of God and his message.
MAY SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST RENEW EVERY PERSON IN THIS WORLD THAT HAS BEEN BAPTISED BY WATER AND THE SPIRIT AND OPEN THEIR EYES TO THE TRUTH IN THESE MOST IMPORTANT DAYS.

MRyan Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:09 am

RememberGethsemane wrote:

If you have a look at the prophecies of the saints and Our Blessed Mother, they do not bang on about a 'visible head' they sincerely warn us about a false apostate church, you want to follow it SF then you go for it! but to me it just means you have zero intuition and love for God in your heart.

And the dogmatic teachings of the 1st Vatican Council on the never-failing faith of Peter, IN whom our Lord “instituted … the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation … So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received”, cannot stand a chance against the “gates of hell trying, if they can [columba and RG], to overthrow the Church” who “make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation” by appealing to spurious and discredited private revelations that speak of the apostasy of Christ’s Vicar and the abandonment of that guidance of the Church he once received; who speak of the failing and crumbling of the visible foundation so that the permanent principle of both unities are smashed and preserved in the “remnants” of the “true believes”.

And the sedevacantist has the gall, while mocking the Church and mocking our Lord, to say, “If you loved God you would instinctively know when His words and promises are being mocked by the ones He entrusted them to. Shame on you if you do not recognise that! SHAME ON YOU!"

What a piece of work.

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:15 am

No RG, shame on you for denying a dogma of the Catholic faith.
You should ask Jesus why HE was so 'hung up on' appointing a permanent 'visible' head to His Church. After all it was not me that declared it necessary for all Catholics to believe it.
BTW can you tell me any of 'the saints' who denied that the Church will always have a visible head, and whilst you’re at it can you tell me where 'Our Blessed Mother' did the same?

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:19 am

The Prophecies of La Salette and St. Alphonsus

RememberGethsemane Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:22 am

MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:

If you have a look at the prophecies of the saints and Our Blessed Mother, they do not bang on about a 'visible head' they sincerely warn us about a false apostate church, you want to follow it SF then you go for it! but to me it just means you have zero intuition and love for God in your heart.
And the dogmatic teachings of the 1st Vatican Council on the never-failing faith of Peter, IN whom our Lord “instituted … the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation … So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received”, cannot stand a chance against the “gates of hell trying, if they can [columba and RG], to overthrow the Church” who “make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation” by appealing to spurious and discredited private revelations that speak of the apostasy of Christ’s Vicar and the abandonment of that guidance of the Church he once received; who speak of the failing and crumbling of the visible foundation so that the permanent principle of both unities are smashed and preserved in the “remnants” of the “true believes”.

And the sedevacantist has the gall, while mocking the Church and mocking our Lord, to say, “If you loved God you would instinctively know when His words and promises are being mocked by the ones He entrusted them to. Shame on you if you do not recognise that! SHAME ON YOU!"

What a piece of work.

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.

columba Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:51 pm

simple Faith wrote:No RG, the question I'm asking is a very simple one straight from the penny catechism; it didn't require rewriting when first published and doesn't require rewriting now.

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

Columba replied with the correct answer: "The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ."

However he replies with an answer he obviously either doesn't believe or doubts as he then immediately begins to present 'evidence' to disprove his own answer.

I will respond to his Fr O'Reilly quotes when he clearly states his position on whether or not the Church has a visible head.

What about yourself RG, without rewriting the question, how do YOU answer?

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?

SF,
Why do you persist in this time wasting antic of having each of your questiions replied to twice. I have already answered your question concerning the visible head and then went on to show you that interuptions can and do exist without the Lord's promises being compromised. If that were not the case, then at each interregnum the Church would cease to exist.

Yes, the Church has a visible head on earth and that head is the Pope. That a visible head must constantly, without interuption, be on the chair of Peter is refuted by the very fact of interregnums; we don't even need to look at the deeper theoligical issues surrounding the legitimacy of any particular pope to know that the uninterrupted occupation of the chair of Peter is not a dogma of the faith.

SF, you appeal to a dogma that doesn't exist in order to refute the possibility that the chair of Peter can be occupied illegaly, while at the same time refuting that which is a true dogma of the faith; i.e, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Your cafeteria style catholicism is hypocritical yet I be accused of being the hypocrite. Go figure.

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:42 pm

Columba, an interregnum is the period between the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor, when the See of Peter is vacant. Yes there was in the past a period of two years and so many months between the death of one Pope and the election of his successor, but no one, even then, doubted the fact that the Pope was actually dead and that a replacement would be chosen.

So let's start with the obvious fact that Pope Benedict XVI is not dead and has not resigned so we are NOT in an interregnum. Nor were we in an interregnum when Pope John Paul II was alive and so on and so forth back to whatever period you choose to go to support your case.
So let's stop playing the 'interregnum' game when it clearly is not relevant and does not apply to the actual reality of the present. This sede interregnum excuse needs to be exposed for what it actually is, the feeble grasping towards a straw that does not exist.
With regards to the 'prominent theologian' Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly (I have never come across him before and a Google search only shows his selective quotes being endlessly regurgitated on sede forums) I don't think that his quotes actually support the cause for which they are being used.
Fr O'Rielly says, "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". So we see that even at the time of the three claimants, we did still have a legitimate Pope.
In an earlier post Columba you said 'no one was sure who he was', but that is not the case nor is it true, for the true Pope had his followers and he was visible to them. But even this confusion over the choice of the legitimate Pope is not relevant today as there are no other contenders to the chair, (at least none that anyone would give credibility to) so we do not need to discern for ourselves which Pope to follow as there is no contest.

So Fr O'Rielly actually concludes that even during the Great Schism the Church actually had a true Pope and that Our Lord's promise, and the dogma of the faith, therefore had not failed.

Nowhere does Fr O' Rielly conclude, what you conclude, "instead of having 3 contenders as in the past, we could have one holding office illegitimately with no others opposing him", that is your own spin Columba (and probably the Dimond spin) but not Fr o'Rielly's spin.

Fr O'Rielly says 'But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced’ but he emphasizes that whatever evils we might experience, that they would not impact upon those "excluded by the Divine promises", i.e. the Catholic Church under the guardianship of the Vicar of Christ, our Pope and of God's promise which clearly states 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. '

I think that Fr O'Rielly actually contradicts the case you try to make.

Columba, can you explain to me how (or since when) the Church has been in a period of interregnum and which Pope died or resigned to cause this?

columba Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:35 pm

SimpleFaith wrote:
Columba, can you explain to me how (or since when) the Church has been in a period of interregnum and which Pope died or resigned to cause this?

Yes. I could explain that to you SF but as my personal opinion is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the truth of the matter, I will refrain. But let me also say this; whether the pope is truly Pope or not, that is irrelevant in consideration of our obligation and duty to practice the True Faith as handed down by Peter and the apostles which is our first priority. If you which to follow a pope (legit or not) into desecration of the Eucharist (because by his authority as pope he has the power to put an end to it), embracing the Church's ememies without condemning their false beliefs and seeking their return, and destruction of Catholic places of worship, then you go right ahead. What difference does it make if he be legitimate or not if he's party to the auto destruction of the Church?

As for the rest of your post, I've already answered it in detail.

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:41 pm

RG, I think it best that you allow your Scottish blood to cool before posting. Maybe a nice bowl of porridge might help but keep away from the Scotch whiskey Very Happy

I take your threats in the same spirit as Columba but I'm sure those without Celtic blood might interpret them literally.

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:09 pm

Columba, your 'personal opinion' hasn't stopped you from replying to posts in the past so let's not make it an obstacle now.
So maybe you could enlightened me as to your 'personal opinion' on 'whether the pope is truly Pope or not', I think it just might be relevant to the topic under discussion.
I do not believe that you have actually answered my post in detail so I'll try again with two simple questions:

1. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an interregnum in the Church where the Pope had not died or had not resigned?

2. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an anti-pope in the seat of Peter or an anti-pope who was not challenged by the true Pope?

I hope that it keeps it simple enough for you to answer.

columba Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:24 pm

SimpleFaith wrote:
Columba, your 'personal opinion' hasn't stopped you from replying to posts in the past so let's not make it an obstacle now. So maybe you could enlightened me as to your 'personal opinion' on 'whether the pope is truly Pope or not',

Once again SF you are showing your ill will in that you wish to ellicit from me a personal opinion of which you are already the answer. I haven't been hiding it from anyone who asked for it but as it is a private opinion it can't add anything to our discussions other than it being a legitimate, non-condemned theological option in accord with available evidence. I make no judgment either way concerning BXVI. I don't declare he is pope, neither do I declare he is not. His legitimacy doen't concern me one way or the other for whether he is legitimate or not, the harm he causes to the faith is nonetheless real.

1. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an interregnum in the Church where the Pope had not died or had not resigned?

You miss the point SF. Regardless of a pope dying or resigning, a gap exists between his death/resignation and the election of the next pope, thus refuting your false claim that a visible head must be in place at every second, minute and year of the Church's existence on earth. The very definition of an interregnum is that span of time which elapses between the death/resignation of one pope to the election of another. Whether one could class as an interregnum the reign of an antipope, I don't know. There may be another word for that period.

2. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an anti-pope in the seat of Peter or an anti-pope who was not challenged by the true Pope?

I believe we are living in unprecedented times. To look for a precedent would be a contradiction. However, from what we do know of the past we can determine that the worst scenario is still to come (if not presently here), because we do know that the Anti Christ is yet to show himself and according to St. Alphonsus, he can't appear while the Sacramental Presence of Christ yet remains in the world. Thus, the prophecy of Daniel (the abolition of the perpetual sacrifice) must first be fulfilled before we see the worst. We are seeing the precusor of this (I believe) in the Novus Ordo Mass.

I could take you by the hand and show you how the present and previous pope could possibly fit the term "antipope" and as we know, antipopes have not been scarce in the past.

I hope that it keeps it simple enough for you to answer.

And I hope my reply was in keeping with your screen name.

simple Faith Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:23 pm

I have never read so much waffle that fails to address even one of the points that I raised, but why should I be surprised?
You say your opinion is 'a legitimate, non-condemned theological option'. I don't think that the Church would agree that casting any doubt over the God appointed Vicar of Christ, falls into that category. Wishful thinking on your part and very kind of you to make 'no judgement either way concerning BXVI'. I hope the Pope sleeps better tonight knowing that his authority is not dependent upon whether or not you declare he is pope or declare he is not.
You say, 'His legitimacy doesn't concern me one way or the other for whether he is legitimate or not'.
Sorry to inform you Columba, but it should concern you, for 'if' he is legitimate then you are committing a very grave sin in your attitude, or lack of, towards him. As if it doesn't matter one iota whether or not God has appointed a Vicar on Earth. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

Despite you trying to give the impression that you are 'sitting on the fence' you expose your true colours in the next breath by stating 'whether one could class as an interregnum the reign of an antipope, I don't know. There may be another word for that period'.
Whether or not you can find a 'word' for that period, I can find a word for your belief, heresy.
You seem to accept that, 'The very definition of an interregnum is that span of time which elapses between the death/resignation of one pope to the election of another' but then you feel privileged to change the definition to include the period or the reign of a Pope who clearly has not died nor resigned. Maybe you and the Dimond brothers could come up with "another word for that period", but no one else has.

It would be a bit like changing the definition of marriage to mean 'two people' instead of 'man and woman' to suit a particular agenda.

Columba says 'I believe we are living in unprecedented times' and this therefore gives him the unprecedented authority to privately interpret the prophecy of Daniel and the Book of Revelation.
Would you ever stop and listen to yourself Columba.

Columba says, 'and as we know, antipopes have not been scarce in the past', well neither have heretics so full of pride that they know best.

And after all that you have still not answered the two questions which I originally posed.

1. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an interregnum in the Church where the Pope had not died or had not resigned?

2. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an anti-pope in the seat of Peter or an anti-pope who was not challenged by the true Pope?

columba Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:25 pm

SimpleFaith wrote:
I have never read so much waffle

You obviously don't proofread your own posts SF.

SimpleFaith wrote:
that fails to address even one of the points that I raised, but why should I be surprised?

You have a way of ignoring answers and arrogantly deriding persons who don't agree with your personal one-man view of Catholicism and you do so by employing ad hominem in place of substance.

SimpleFaith wrote:
You say your opinion is 'a legitimate, non-condemned theological option'. I don't think that the Church would agree that casting any doubt over the God appointed Vicar of Christ, falls into that category.

And how would you know that? Is that what you think and therefore it must be true? Let's see who who else you disregard while exalting your own personal opinion:

“Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church's wealth, or Peter's Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroy the church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him.”

“It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands, orders or by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.” (The theologian Sylvester Prieras, O.P. 1523)

The theologian Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. († 1534) declared: “It is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.” (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio).

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidaly: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

Cardinal De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8 )

Yes. You personally don't agree but then it's not your personal opinion I go by when determining what position I must take for the salvation of my soul. It will not be you who judges me (as much as you might like that) and so I'll continue to follow where the truth leads if that's OK with you.

SimpleFaith wrote:
Wishful thinking on your part and very kind of you to make 'no judgement either way concerning BXVI'. I hope the Pope sleeps better tonight knowing that his authority is not dependent upon whether or not you declare he is pope or declare he is not.

Go ahead and prove SF that a true pope can oversee the destruction of the Church. If he is an antipope then he will certainly sleep well knowning he will encounter no resistance from you and the vast majority of brainwashed sheeple. Nether you, Mike or anyone else can infallibly declare that the destruction of the Church is not the result of the actions of an anti-pope/s. Maybe you believe (as Michael Voris does) that it's all the result of bad bishops and clergy. Even if that were so, the pope has the authority to excommunicate them. If he doesn't do so he condones their behavior. But like I said, he is not averse to excommunicating those who are trying to maintain the faith.

SimpleFaith wrote:
You say, 'His legitimacy doesn't concern me one way or the other for whether he is legitimate or not'. Sorry to inform you Columba, but it should concern you, for 'if' he is legitimate then you are committing a very grave sin in your attitude, or lack of, towards him. As if it doesn't matter one iota whether or not God has appointed a Vicar on Earth. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

What matters to me is keeping the faith and not departing from the teachings of the Church even one iota. That's also what your concern should be whether the pope is legitimate or not. I may have moral certainty but I don't have the authority to infallibly determine his legal status as pope; neither do you.

SimpleFaith wrote:
Despite you trying to give the impression that you are 'sitting on the fence' you expose your true colours in the next breath by stating 'whether one could class as an interregnum the reign of an antipope, I don't know. There may be another word for that period'.

I explained to you what an interregnum was. If my definition is wrong then show me the true definition. I don't believe the reign of an anti-pope would be classed as an interregnum but it could well be. When I show you my true colors you won't accept that this is my position. I won't change my position as a result of your irrational and childish goading but I will change it in accord with the unfolding evidence. Do you think for a minute I wouldn't jump off the fence if the eveidence compelled me to jump? The difference between you and I SF is that I will go with the truth no matter if it means ending up in a Church of one. You, on the other hand, would become a sede tomorrow as long as it was the majority position and had clearance from Mike.

SimpleFaith wrote:
Whether or not you can find a 'word' for that period, I can find a word for your belief, heresy.

I see the word heresy being branded about here more so than I see on the Dimond brothers website (I couldn't use the acronym as it auto corrects to a more PC rendering. I wonder why there's so much fear of these two mem yet so little courage when it come to confronting them. I've challenged them on the Co-Redemptrix issue and whata ya know; I'm still alive). Why don't you go challenge them SF and test out your personal opinions. See if these opinions of yours can win the day for all to see. Go ahead SF. You are their biggest critic so why expend energy deriding them from afar when you could do it face to face? I think I know why; they'll eat you up for breakfast, but until you do so I will ignore any insults you hurl behind their backs. Whether I agree or disagree with the Dimonds I refuse to take seriously anyone who uses such cowardly tactics.

SimpleFaith wrote:
You seem to accept that, 'The very definition of an interregnum is that span of time which elapses between the death/resignation of one pope to the election of another' but then you feel privileged to change the definition to include the period or the reign of a Pope who clearly has not died nor resigned. Maybe you and the Dimond brothers could come up with "another word for that period", but no one else has.

Your misrepresentation of my (and other posters) views is abominable SF. I never changed the meaning of interregnum nor suggested that an anti-pope's reign would be considered an interregnum. I don't think the Dimond brothers call it an interregnum but if there is a word for it, they'll know it. Go ask them.

SimpleFaith wrote:
It would be a bit like changing the definition of marriage to mean 'two people' instead of 'man and woman' to suit a particular agenda.

Or a bit like attending -out of human respect- the civil ceremony of two apostate baptized Catholics and pretending it's a marriage. It happens all the time.

George Brenner Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:31 pm

Columba,

We share the fact and not opinion that Our Catholic Church has been severely attacked from within during this particular crisis of Faith. I have written enough letters and in retrospect would do each and every one over again. The fact that there is cover up in breaking God's law and Civil Law breaks my heart. How can such obvious immoral and devious deeds be done without at least one person in authority putting an end to such attrocities. Who knew what and when did they know it? I have openly fought against Father Reginald Foster who resided in the halls of the Vatican for many many years and openly attacks Our Faith and nothing was done. Why? Some in the church said that is Reggie being Reggie .....and now this which I have been following lately:

Feb 1 release , Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, one of the most powerful Catholics in the United States comes a stunning rebuke from his successor, Los Angeles Archbishop
Jose Gomez:

“I find these files to be brutal and painful reading,” Gomez said of the molestation files Mahony tried desperately to keep out of the hands of police, even as known pedophiles claimed more victims. “The behavior described in these files is terribly sad and evil.”

end of quote by Archbishop Gomez.

Columba, I am convinced that you try to intrepret Church teaching (eg baptism of desire< baptism of blood etc etc) incorrectly and thus have gone after the Church rather than the rats who have entered the Church. I know, I know this opens up the greater discussion again but I welcome that.

JMJ,

Your friend

George

simple Faith Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:03 pm

Columba the first question I asked was:

1. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an interregnum in the Church where the Pope had not died or had not resigned?

Columba, it was you, not I, who introduced the ‘interregnum’ scenario into the discussion to support your case that we could currently be in an interregnum period because there has been such periods of time before in Church history.
However, from your last response, I think you now accept that an interregnum only actually occurs following the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor. So whatever ‘unprecedented’ period that we might currently be in, it cannot be correctly defined as an ‘interregnum’. Therefore an alternative explanation would be required to support the belief that we could currently have a vacant seat or an anti-pope.

My second question was:

2. Can you show anywhere or at any time that there was an anti-pope in the seat of Peter or an anti-pope who was not challenged by the true Pope?

Of course you can’t because our Lord has promised that it can never happen, and therefore, if such a worst case scenario did exist today i.e. a vacant seat of Peter ‘occupied’ by an anti-pope (if such a thing were possible) then you would be correct that this would be ‘unprecedented’ and it would therefore be fruitless to search Church history or tradition to find any support for such an opinion, for as you stated, yours is certainly a ‘private opinion’ not shared by the Catholic Church.

I wonder if any of those listed by you to support your willingness to resist or disobey the Pope ever actually had to put their hypothetical opinions into practice.

columba Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:04 pm

George Brenner wrote:

Columba,

We share the fact and not opinion that Our Catholic Church has been severely attacked from within during this particular crisis of Faith.

Yes we do George. Where we differ is in our opinion as to where the buck stops.

George Brenner wrote:
I have written enough letters and in retrospect would do each and every one over again.

How many replies did you receive George? There's been countless open letters sent to VCII popes by high ranking members of clergy and laity alike representing thousands of disenfranchised Catholics. Was there ever a reply? No. The SSPX engaged in one-sided talks with Rome for a couple of years and none of their grievances were heard never mind addressed. They have thousands of members including hundreds of priests, yet no consideration was given or explanations forthcoming regarding the issues under dispute. If it were a couple of maverick upstarts who were demanding answers one could see the justification for ignoring them, but that was/isn't the case. If the issues were addressed, not just from the exclusivist VCII nuanced theological mindset but inclusive of the Church's 2,000 year teachings, the whole V2 charade would crumble to dust. This is why no talks can be permitted and this is why you will receive no answers to your concerns. If you do, they will be patronizing afronts to your intelligence.

George Brenner wrote:
The fact that there is cover up in breaking God's law and Civil Law breaks my heart. How can such obvious immoral and devious deeds be done without at least one person in authority putting an end to such attrocities.

Good question George. As you know, I have my own answer.

George Brenner wrote:
Who knew what and when did they know it? I have openly fought against Father Reginald Foster who resided in the halls of the Vatican for many many years and openly attacks Our Faith and nothing was done. Why?

Because so long as you're not a traditionalist you can literally get away with murder. There is no greater enemy of the new church than traditionalism. Sodomy, paedophilia, sacrilege; you name it; all bad to a greater or lesser degree, but traditionalism? Thats a bridge too far. Martin Luther was a man of God (apparently) as we've been taught recently, but Archbishop Lefebvre and his ilk? Bad with a capital B.

George, I've read the Archbishop Gomez comments and I was thinking; Aren't the two evils related; the abuse of children by clergy and the sodomite seminaries that were allowed to go unchecked for decades despite countless appeals to Rome to intervene?
Let those who took no action regarding these seminaries also be sacked. Fair's fair.

Columba, I am convinced that you try to intrepret Church teaching (eg baptism of desire< baptism of blood etc etc) incorrectly and thus have gone after the Church rather than the rats who have entered the Church. I know, I know this opens up the greater discussion again but I welcome that.

I go after no one George. I just go after facts and let the chips fall where they will. There are rats and king rats. As in all political and corporate systems, the small fry take the rap.

MRyan Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:16 pm

Since this has already been kicked-about on another thread, and locked before we could, ummm, finish (“Sedevacantism OK as opinion, but not fact??”), there is no sense re-inventing the wheel with respect to columba’s misappropriation of the opinion of Fr. O’Reilly on a lengthy interregnum or a period of confusion when there is more than one claimant to the Papacy:

columba wrote:

Bernadette,
Contrary to MRyan's definitive view that it could never be held that the chair of Peter could remain vacant for an extended period of time or be illegitimately occupied, has not been the opinion of many theologians who considered this subject. Mike would have to conclude then, that those theologians were heretics also, even though they were never declared to be such by the Church and remained fully Catholic until death.

I'm not dealing here with whether or not B.XVI is/was a heretic. I'm taking issue with Mikes assertion/assumption that the Church will always have a reigning Pope at any given time in history.

That’s a complete distortion of my position; and it is simply and factually incorrect. Please, columba, try a little harder to get it right.

But let’s see what Fr. O’Reilly has to say; from: The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.

“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.”

There is no need to dispute any of this.

But here’s the vital difference; nowhere does O’Reilly suggest, like the sede-spleenists, that an antipope can be accepted by the universal Church and rule from the Chair of Peter during an “interregnum”. In the case cited by O’Reilly, there was always a valid Pope, but a universal consensus was lacking, so doubt as to the identity of the true pope was excusable. Here’s the other difference worth noting; not one of the “popes” was a heretic, not one. In fact, the true Pope resigned for the good of the Church so another election could ensue so as to remove all doubt.

Fr. O’Reilly would find the prospect of a public manifest heretic ruling over the universal Church, or the plausibility of columba’s two-headed monster of a pope who rules over two different “Catholic” Churches ("big C" and "little c") to be as repulsive and heretical as the Church does (especially VCI).

Fr. O’Reilly continues:

“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.

Correct, there is no divine guarantee that another similar situation will not occur where the true Pope could not be conclusively identified for some time (due to persecution, exile, two or more claimants, confusion, etc.). It can happen, but the visible Church and the Holy See would still be visible, and the anticipation of the pope, either elected during a legitimate interregnum or restored after having been in exile, would not contradict perpetual primacy and visibility.

But, again, does O’Reilly suggest that during an interregnum a manifest public heretic and antipope can usurp the Chair of Peter and be recognized by the universal Church for years on end; or even for a short duration without being discovered? NO!

Fr. O’Reilly:

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."

Is there even a hint of some heretical fantasy that says: “Rome [the See of Peter] will lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ”?

Are the ellipses after "Divine promises ..." there for a good reason, columba? Did he happen to mention any of those Divine promises in your copy and paste extract, the original citation of which you have never actually read?

Do you want me to cite those infallible dogmatic “Divine promises” again?

Our Lord promised He would not abandon Peter: “St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him” … and “it can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail...", for “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome”.

In his official Relatio of July 11, 1870 on chapter four of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Bishop Gasser explains why this promise is not an empty one:

“This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.’” (Cf. Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, pp. 24-25; K Gurries, On Rupture Theology, May, 2009)

I could go on and on, but will keep it brief with this:

We need fear little that the See of Peter may ever fall because the impregnable foundation of his Church was laid by Christ the Lord; however We must not cease to defend its authority. (INTER PRAECIPUAS; Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI on Biblical Societies, 8 May 1844)

[On] this See of Peter...rests the entire structure of our most holy religion." (Pope Pius IX, "Qui Pluribus", 1846)

All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians." (Pope Pius IX, "Nostis et Nobiscum ", 1849)

columba Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:18 pm

SimpleFaith wrote:
I wonder if any of those listed by you to support your willingness to resist or disobey the Pope ever actually had to put their hypothetical opinions into practice.

The moral calibre of the men you are speaking of leads me to believe they would have no hesitation in putting their money where their mouth is.

Here's an example of how such people conduct themselves in accord with their opinions:

“Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” St. Catherine of Siena († 1380):

Notice how they go direct to the source of their gripe.

The rest of your post I consider already answered SF.

MRyan Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:50 pm

columba wrote:
Here's an example of how such people conduct themselves in accord with their opinions:

“Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” St. Catherine of Siena († 1380):

Notice how they go direct to the source of their gripe.

Oh, good grief. Columba, please provide the source for this citation. Seriously, let's see it.

True obedience to the Holy Father, especially as Universal Pastor, never leads to eternal damnation.

St. Catherine of Siena:

”He who rebels against our Father, Christ on earth, is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ in heaven-we honour Christ if we honour the Pope, we dishonour Christ if we dishonour the Pope....Well do I know that there are many who do not think they are offending God by so doing, but rather that they are doing Him a service by persecuting the Church and her servants, for they defend themselves by saying: 'They are so corrupt and work all manner of evil.' But I tell you that God wills and has so commanded that even if the priests and the pastors of the Church and Christ on earth were incarnate devils, it is seemly that we are obedient and subject to them, not for their sake, but for the sake of God, out of obedience to Him, for He wills that we should act thus. . .". (St. Catherine of Siena, by Johannes Jørgensen)

simple Faith Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:50 pm

Columba, please don't stoop to the level of attempting to get the saints (and Doctor of the Church), all of whom were totally loyal and loving towards the Pope, to support your cause and cast aspersions against the Vicar of Christ.

"And do not look at the ignorance and pride of your little children; but with the enticement of your love and of your benignity, granting them that sweet discipline and benign reprehension which may please your Holiness, render peace to us, your miserable children who have offended you.
I tell you, o sweet Christ on earth, from Christ in heaven, that, doing thus, that is, without quarrel and uproar, they will all see with pain the offense they have done, and will place their heads in their hands."
Saint Catherine of Siena to Gregory XI

George Brenner Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:04 pm

Columba,

As posted by Mike:

”He who rebels against our Father, Christ on earth, is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ in heaven-we honour Christ if we honour the Pope, we dishonour Christ if we dishonour the Pope....Well do I know that there are many who do not think they are offending God by so doing, but rather that they are doing Him a service by persecuting the Church and her servants, for they defend themselves by saying: 'They are so corrupt and work all manner of evil.' But I tell you that God wills and has so commanded that even if the priests and the pastors of the Church and Christ on earth were incarnate devils, it is seemly that we are obedient and subject to them, not for their sake, but for the sake of God, out of obedience to Him, for He wills that we should act thus. . .". (St. Catherine of Siena, by Johannes Jørgensen)

Words to stop, pause and pray upon and not be so quick to start posting without deep prayer and help from Heaven. There are times that seem darkest and desperate and it is especially in those times that we must pray for what someone, anyone may become and not what they currently are out of love and humble respect for God and Church,as improbable and contradictory these words may seem. Words of mine that pail in comparison to what St Catherine said.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:17 pm

VCI, FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST:

“…For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

St. Cyprian of Carthage, circa 251 A.D.:

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?

Pope Damasus I, Decree of Damasus # 3, A.D. 382:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

The "Formula of Pope Hormisdas", AD 519:

Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," etc., cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot.... In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion.

St. Pope Agatho, AD 680; Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p. 276:

This Apostolic Church never turned away from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. This is the rule of faith. All who wish to please God must study to conform the Apostolic rule of the primitive faith founded on the rock Peter, and kept by him from error.

Fifth Lateran Council:

The eternal Father, who will never abandon his flock up to the close of the age, so loved obedience, as the Apostle testifies, that to make expiation for the sin of disobedience of the first parent, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death. … As we read in another place, the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman pontiff cannot be within the church; for, on the authority of Augustine and Gregory, obedience alone is the mother and protector of all virtues, it alone possessing the reward of faith.

Pope St. Leo IX, 1053 A.D.:

As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because 'the highest See is judged by no one.'

Pope St. Nicholas I:

If any one shall despise the dogmatic decisions, injunctions, interdicts, sanctions or decrees which have been wisely published by the one who presides over the Apostolic See on behalf of the Catholic faith, ecclesiastical discipline, the correction of the faithful, the punishment of the wicked, or the forbidding of present or future evils, let him be anathema.

Pope Leo XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae", 1890:

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. ... Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively ... otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.

To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear.

Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896:

The Church Always Visible … It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element - that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another. 'There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him'(S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3).

And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. "But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: "Confirm thy brethren". He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defence of its faith. … "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held" (St. Augustine, Sermo cxx., n. 13).

Pope Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis Christi", 1943:

"Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. ... For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone."

MRyan Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:49 pm

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church:

Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion." (Decretal XXIV, Q1, canon Quoties)

St. Peter Chrysologus, Doctor of the Church, 449 AD:

"We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, offers the truth of the faith to those who seek. For we in our zeal for peace an faith cannot decide questions of faith apart from the consent of the bishop of Rome."

Pope St. Boniface I, 422 AD:

No one has ever boldly raised his hands in opposition to the apostolic supremacy, from whose judgment there may be no withdrawal; no one in this has been rebellious, except him who wished judgment to be passed on himself.

Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896:

"But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey. What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys. Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him.

columba Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:50 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Here's an example of how such people conduct themselves in accord with their opinions:

“Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” St. Catherine of Siena († 1380):

Notice how they go direct to the source of their gripe.

Oh, good grief. Columba, please provide the source for this citation. Seriously, let's see it.

I have found the quote used by many traditionalists (not all of whom are SV's as it doesn't do much for their case being that St Catherine was recognizing as Pope the one whom she was castigating) many of whom would be considered reliable regarding the sources they use (John Lane being my earliest recollection of its use). The quote is attributed it to St. Catherine of Siena in one of her several letters to Pope Gregory XI but no one I can find on line has actually produced the letter.

I will forego the use of this quote for now until such a time as its authenicity can be affirmed or rejected. However, the quote is irrelevant to the point I was making to SF, that those theologians and Doctors who held opinions about the impecabilty or lack there of, of any given pope, would undoubtedly stand by their convictions, which, SF insinuated they would not.

MRyan Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:33 pm

columba wrote: I will forego the use of this quote for now until such a time as its authenicity can be affirmed or rejected. However, the quote is irrelevant to the point I was making to SF, that those theologians and Doctors who held opinions about the impecabilty or lack there of, of any given pope, would undoubtedly stand by their convictions, which, SF insinuated they would not.

Actually, your point was that St. Catherine was suggesting that one could be damned for being obedient to the Holy Father, when she actually said just the opposite. And she provided the context for what she meant.

Neither St. Catherine nor the Doctors held opinions even remotely suggesting the “impeccability” of the Pope, and I know for a fact that SF suggested no such thing. The whole point of St. Catherine’s warning was to convey that we obey the pope (or be damned) despite his lack of impeccability, his moral failings or his tyranny.

You cannot bring forth one Doctor or saint who would suggest that an anti-pope could usurp the chair of Peter without violence and without objection, fool the entire Church (except the little sede remnant) and rule as Christ's Vicar for years on end while destroying the very visible, infallible, and indefectible institution of divine origin.

Not.

The issue is the loss of faith and heresy. You accuse the popes, I reject such accusations.

MRyan Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:29 pm

Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (Saint Catherine of Sienna, Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376)

That oft-copy and pasted citation is easy to find on the internet.

And there's a good reason this is bogus; Pope Gregory IX died in 1241, Catherine was born in 1347. Pope Gregory XI died in 1378, Catherine in 1380.

Here is a reputable source for Catherine's Letters, and a sample citation to Brother Antonio of Nizza:

"For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (http://domcentral.org/saint-catherine-of-siena-as-seen-in-her-letters/#2BrAntonio)

See the “table” of Cathrine’s Letters.

There are at least six Letters to Gregory XI and three to Urban VI.

Obviously, the oft-copy and pasted mindless "citation", if it exists, is from a Letter to Gregory XI. And I am not going to waste my time looking, columba is, and will report back to us on his findings.

columba Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
You cannot bring forth one Doctor or saint who would suggest that an anti-pope could usurp the chair of Peter without violence and without objection, fool the entire Church (except the little sede remnant) and rule as Christ's Vicar for years on end while destroying the very visible, infallible, and indefectible institution of divine origin.

Not.

I can do better than a Doctor or saint. I can bring you a true vucar of Christ:

"We add moreover that if at any time it shall appear that any Bishop even if he assert for himself the rank of Archbishop, Patriarch, Primate, or Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or legate, or even Roman Pontiff before his promotion or assumption into the Cardinalate or Pontificate, shall have deviated from the Catholic faith or have fallen into any heresy, or incurred, excited or committed any schism, his promotion or assumption even made in full concord and with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, abrogated, and void, nor shall be called or become valid even by the reception of the grace of consecration nor the subsequent possession of government and administration, nor even by the enthronization or adoration of the elected person as Roman Pontiff or the universal obedience rendered to him for how long a period soever. Nor shall he be held legitimate in any form, nor be deemed capable of giving or be held to have given any authority of administration in things spiritual or temporal to any person promoted to bishoprics,.." (from, Cum ex Apostolatus, Pope Paul IV)

columba Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:58 pm

Correction

I can do better than a Doctor or saint. I can bring you a true vucar of Christ:

Please read "vicar"

simple Faith Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:06 am

Columba, I don't think that even your attempt to get a Pope to support your position (or personal opinion) holds much water in the context that you choose to use it.

You might remember that (Cum ex Apostolatus, Pope Paul IV) was the subject of discussion on this forum previously, when, on one of the very rare occasions, you found yourself in agreement with Mryan with on 'The War Against The Papacy
by James Larson.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t256-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio

It might be worth another read.

columba Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:29 am

simple Faith wrote:Columba, I don't think that even your attempt to get a Pope to support your position (or personal opinion) holds much water in the context that you choose to use it.

You might remember that (Cum ex Apostolatus, Pope Paul IV) was the subject of discussion on this forum previously, when, on one of the very rare occasions, you found yourself in agreement with Mryan with on 'The War Against The Papacy
by James Larson.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t256-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio

It might be worth another read.

I mistakenly attributed to Mike the writings he was quoting and acknowledged that they were very well written. However, in agreeing that Cum ex Apostolatus was mainly disciplinary in nature, I did not agree that it was devoid of infallible teaching, especially concerning those matters where the language employed by the pope was similar to that employed when declaring articles of faith that are perpetually binding; a term frequently used within this particular document. Pope Pope Paul IV was (in agreement with many saints, Doctors and theologians) affirming that it is of divine law that a heretic cannot be pope.

I don't see how the extract from Cum ex was out of context in this discussion.

Lionel Andrades Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:46 am

Padre Pio says after Jesus comes the pope.

simple Faith Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:05 am

Columba said:
"I don't see how the extract from Cum ex was out of context in this discussion."

The quote does not support the case that that an individual, such as yourself, can or should take selective extracts of writings to use against the current Pope, or past Popes, especially given the fact no competent Church authority has ever done so against a reigning Pope.

As 2 Peter 3:16 warns: ' His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.'

The danger of doing so is apparent, when one looks at the results of those individuals who have actually followed along this path. The self-belief necessary to do so requires the complete dismissal of the Magisterium to define heresy and instead permits each and every individual the right to define a Pope as a heretic or an anti-pope.
When this process of, self-appointed heretic hunter, begins the person will surely and gradually paint himself into a lonely corner, from which he does not escape whilst holding his self-fulfilling prophecy.

The defence “I don't declare he is pope, neither do I declare he is not. His legitimacy doesn’t concern me one way or the other for whether he is legitimate or not",
does not have any logic for it implies that you have no interest in the 'truth' of a matter that you obviously do have an interest in. For it is the same as saying, 'I don't know if the Catholic Church has a Pope nor do I care if the Catholic Church does not have a Pope', and claiming that this is, "a legitimate, non-condemned theological option" of the Church.

MRyan Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:26 am

columba wrote:
simple Faith wrote:Columba, I don't think that even your attempt to get a Pope to support your position (or personal opinion) holds much water in the context that you choose to use it.

You might remember that (Cum ex Apostolatus, Pope Paul IV) was the subject of discussion on this forum previously, when, on one of the very rare occasions, you found yourself in agreement with Mryan with on 'The War Against The Papacy
by James Larson.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t256-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio

It might be worth another read.
I mistakenly attributed to Mike the writings he was quoting and acknowledged that they were very well written. However, in agreeing that Cum ex Apostolatus was mainly disciplinary in nature, I did not agree that it was devoid of infallible teaching, especially concerning those matters where the language employed by the pope was similar to that employed when declaring articles of faith that are perpetually binding; a term frequently used within this particular document. Pope Pope Paul IV was (in agreement with many saints, Doctors and theologians) affirming that it is of divine law that a heretic cannot be pope.

I don't see how the extract from Cum ex was out of context in this discussion.

True to form, you can't even acknowledge the truth of what you actually said, and are now walking it back:

Very Interesting MRyan and an excellent critique of "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio."

I's a rare occassion when I find myself in agreement with you but this is one such instance where I am.

I have had vague reservations as to the infabillity of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and as you correctly pointed out that this is purely a disciplinary matter (not faith and morals) then its infallible nature is very questionable.

But let's forget all that and pretend that you really didn't mean to suggest that your "vague reservations as to the infabillity of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio"; which infallibility indeed "is very questionable" based on your agreement with me that the author "correctly pointed out that this is purely a disciplinary matter (not faith and morals)".

You even said "even though it be disciplinary, the fact that it was declared valid in perpetuity brings into question the wisdom of nullifying it just because of it's apparent excessiveness."

Yes, why would subsequent popes render Cum ex all but nullified (de facto nullification) when certain sede's and raddie-traddies can have so much fun with it in deciding for themselves which Roman Pontiffs "appear" to "have deviated from the Catholic faith", and thus, in the "wisdom" of delegating to the laity such arbitrary powers, shall declare these same Pontificate's "null, abrogated, and void, nor shall be called or become valid even by the reception of the grace of consecration nor the subsequent possession of government and administration, nor even by the enthronization or adoration of the elected person as Roman Pontiff or the universal obedience rendered to him for how long a period soever."

In fact, you say, "When the dust settles on Vatican II we may well revert back to reapplying the wisdom and principles contained in those disiplines of Paul IV and Pius V. The sooner the better I say."

I would say you already have.

So in response to my challenge to bring forth one Doctor or saint who would suggest that an anti-pope could usurp the chair of Peter without violence and without objection, fool the entire Church (except the little sede remnant) and rule as Christ's Vicar for years on end while destroying the very visible, infallible, and indefectible institution of divine origin, you "revert back" to citing what you say is "a purely disciplinary matter (not faith and morals)", and suggest that which you previously found yourself "in agreement with", you now disagree.

In other words, if you agreed "the Fathers at Vatican I rejected this argument on the basis that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was not a document that involved any infallible definitions whatsoever", why let that spoil your fun of rendering null the 1st Vatican Council's Pastor Aeternus on the never-failing faith of Peter and the infallible truth that our Lord "instituted in him [Peter] the permanent principle of both unities [faith and communion] and their visible foundation", and that "Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple"; and that in order to protect this divine institution from the gates of Hell and its ready-enablers who "assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation", VCI defined the institution, permanence and nature "of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends."

Yes, columba, take the "wisdom" of "a purely disciplinary matter (not faith and morals)" and set it against the infallible truth of a dogmatic Constitution that declared "in perpetuity" that:

no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church... to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

columba Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:59 pm

SimpleFaith wrote:
The quote does not support the case that that an individual, such as yourself, can or should take selective extracts of writings to use against the current Pope, or past Popes, especially given the fact no competent Church authority has ever done so against a reigning Pope.

Why then are you making a personal judgment and trying to pass it off as infallible that the man who occupies the chair of Peter must always be a true pope?

I'm not judging whether he is or not, but like I said before, if he teaches contrary to the faith (which he does), then I can have reasonable doubt concerning his legitimacy. I do not take upon myself the authority to publically declare him anathema unlike you SF, who take it upon yourself to make judgement concerning his legitimacy, not just as a private opinion but as an infallible statement of truth that all must believe because SF says so and SF has the full understanding of all the Gospels, the epistles of the apostles and Church teachings. I do not claim to have such tremendous knowledge, and if such complete knowledge was necessary in order for one to make even basic determinations of what is Catholic and what is not, then no one at all would be required to hold the Catholic Faith for it would be impossible to ever know for sure what one was meant to believe, a propsition by the way which has already been condemned. No. There are simple ways of determing what one must believe and the means of doing so are not all theological. Logic and reason first, then theology.

Logic and reason can be used long before theology needs come into play for there are (as St Thomas says) certain truths which are self-evident, one such truth being that two contradictory propsitions cannot be held simultaniously as true. To do so would be admitting that truth cannot be known (another condemned proposition).

Yourself SF, and Mike, would have us all believe that theology supercedes logic and reason, forgetting that logic and reason are the most employed tools in theology as neither will be found to contradict faith when properly used.

Now if it is of divne faith that a hereetic cannot hold office in the Church (a view held by many Doctors and saints and apparently Cum ex Apostolatus agrees), and if it be possible to determine a statement or action to be heretical (which it is by the natural light of reason and subject to the law of non-contradiction), then the only question remaining is, "Can it be shown that a particular Roman Pontiff holds doctrines which are contrary to those held by his numerous predecessors?" If the answer is yes, then one must suspect the one who holds the contrary doctrines as being in heresy.

SimpleFaith wrote:
As 2 Peter 3:16 warns: ' His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.'

Yep. St Peter was referring to the letters of St Paul and warning the brethren not to insert meanings contrary to what was being preached. That's one (but not all) of the reasons why I refuse to believe in baptism of desire, for as St. Paul says (and Trent upholds the meaning of what he says):

Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, … the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13)

and also one (but not all) of the reasons why I do not believe in invincible ignorance:

(2 Corinthians 4:3) “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

SimpleFaith wrote:
The danger of doing so is apparent, when one looks at the results of those individuals who have actually followed along this path. The self-belief necessary to do so requires the complete dismissal of the Magisterium to define heresy and instead permits each and every individual the right to define a Pope as a heretic or an anti-pope.
When this process of, self-appointed heretic hunter, begins the person will surely and gradually paint himself into a lonely corner, from which he does not escape whilst holding his self-fulfilling prophecy.

When are you going to provide the infallible Church teaching that the person who occupies the chair of Peter must always be a legitimate pope? Remember, I'm not looking for your own infallible teaching; I'm looking for a Church teaching.

And one more question. If it's impossible to determine what heresy is and who holds it, how can you possibly claim that my position is heretical? You' self appointed arbiters of truth have this quite amusing habit of shooting yourselves in the foot with your' own interdenominational gun. Amusing as it is, these arrogant, self-righteous, papolatrous rantings, devoid of any respect for truth, which considers first their own comfort, holding for convenience sake as the supreme dogma of the faith that the chair of Peter must always house a legitimate pope, and placing this non-dogma over and above the commandments of God and the theological virtues of Faith and Charity; gets wearisome after a while.

Before you reply I must warn you (lest you retaliate by calling me a heretic) that to be true to the pope whom you profess to obey, you best consider these words from the counter syllabus, a document which the present pope adheres to both in word and action:

Gaudium et Spes: "[B]ut it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone."(11)

Poor Luther; if he'd been alive today he would never have had to suffer the indignity of being called a heretic. Well at least now the charge no longer stands (if that will do him any good). I suppose it will be a comfort for his present-day followers.. Well in this life anyway.

George Brenner Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:56 pm

Without true Popes and a defined Church we would have been thrown to the four winds and Satan would have succeded in destruction of Our Faith. Such is not the case. The Church would NEVER be left in a situation where one would say who are we to follow and where will I find my Ark of Salvation. Any and all sins by everyone are dealt with at lifes end. Agreed we must work harder and be more diligent today versus previous times. We must love and fight for our Faith. We must pray for and be subject to our Holy Father.

Notice in the Vatican statements below the constant reference to the Council of Trent.
Our Church is protected by the Holy Ghost. Do not fear.

Fom the Holy See

RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
TO THE JOINT DECLARATION OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

DECLARATION

The "Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification" represents a significant progress in mutual understanding and in the coming together in dialogue of the parties concerned; it shows that there are many points of convergence between the Catholic position and the Lutheran position on a question that has been for centuries so controversial. It can certainly be affirmed that a high degree of agreement has been reached, as regards both the approach to the question and the judgement it merits (1). It is rightly stated that there is "a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification" (2).

The Catholic Church is, however, of the opinion that we cannot yet speak of a consensus such as would eliminate every difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the understanding of justification. The Joint Declaration itself refers to certain of these differences. On some points the positions are, in fact, still divergent. So, on the basis of the agreement already reached on many aspects, the Catholic Church intends to contribute towards overcoming the divergencies that still exist by suggesting, below, in order of importance, a list of points that constitute still an obstacle to agreement between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on all the fundamental truths concerning justification. The Catholic Church hopes that the following indications may be an encouragement to continue study of these questions in the same fraternal spirit that, in recent times, has characterized the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLARIFICATIONS

1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula "at the same time righteous and sinner", as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 ("Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament ...Looking at themselves ... however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them..."), is not acceptable.

This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks (4). The expression "Opposition to God" (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, "... God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love", because man's interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.

2. Another difficulty arises in n.18 of the Joint Declaration, where a clear difference appears in the importance, for Catholics and for Lutherans, of the doctrine of justification as criterion for the life and practice of the Church.

Whereas for Lutherans this doctrine has taken on an altogether particular significance, for the Catholic Church the message of justification, according to Scripture and already from the time of the Fathers, has to be organically integrated into the fundamental criterion of the "regula fidei", that is, the confession of the one God in three persons, christologically centred and rooted in the living Church and its sacramental life.

3. As stated in n. 17 of the Joint Declaration, Lutherans and Catholics share the common conviction that the new life comes from divine mercy and not from any merit of ours. It must, however, be remembered - as stated in 2 Cor 5:17 - that this divine mercy brings about a new creation and so makes man capable of responding to God's gift , of cooperating with grace. In this regard, the Catholic Church notes with satisfaction that n. 21, in conformity with can. 4 of the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent ( DS 1554) states that man can refuse grace; but it must also be affirmed that, with this freedom to refuse, there is also a new capacity to adhere to the divine will, a capacity rightly called "cooperatio". This new capacity given in the new creation, does not allow us to use in this context the expression "mere passive" ( n. 21). On the other hand, the fact that this capacity has the character of a gift is well expressed in cap. 5 (DS 1525) of the Tridentine Decree when it says: "ita ut tangente Deo cor hominis per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, neque homo ipse nihil omnino agat, inspirationem illam recipiens, quippe qui illam et abicere potest, neque tamen sine gratia Dei movere se ad iustitiam coram illo libera sua voluntate possit".

In reality, also on the Lutheran side, there is the affirmation, in n. 21, of a full personal involvement in faith ("believers are fully involved personally in their faith").

A clarification would, however, be necessary as to the compatibility of this involvement with the reception "mere passive" of justification, in order to determine more exactly the degree of consensus with the Catholic doctrine. As for the final sentence of n. 24: "God's gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation", this must be understood in the sense that the gifts of God's grace do not depend on the works of man, but not in the sense that justification can take place without human cooperation. The sentence of n. 19 according to which man's freedom "is no freedom in relation to salvation" must, similarly, be related to the impossibility for man to reach justification by his own efforts.

The Catholic Church maintains, moreover, that the good works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But at the same time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine initiative (5), they are also the fruit of man, justified and interiorly transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits (6). This doctrine results from the interior transformation of man to which we referred in n.1 of this "Note". These clarifications are a help for a right understanding, from the Catholic point of view, of paragraph 4.7 (nn. 37-39 ) on the good works of the justified.

4. In pursuing this study further, it will be necessary to treat also the sacrament of penance, which is mentioned in n. 30 of the Joint Declaration. According to the Council of Trent, in fact (7), through this sacrament the sinner can be justified anew ( rursus iustificari ): this implies the possibility, by means of this sacrament, as distinct from that of baptism, to recover lost justice (. These aspects are not all sufficiently noted in the above-mentioned n. 30.

5. These remarks are intended as a more precise explanation of the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the points on which complete agreement has not been reached; they are also meant to complete some of the paragraphs explaining Catholic doctrine, in order to bring out more clearly the degree of consensus that has been reached. The level of agreement is high, but it does not yet allow us to affirm that all the differences separating Catholics and Lutherans in the doctrine concerning justification are simply a question of emphasis or language. Some of these differences concern aspects of substance and are therefore not all mutually compatible, as affirmed on the contrary in n. 40.

If, moreover, it is true that in those truths on which a consensus has been reached the condemnations of the Council of Trent non longer apply, the divergencies on other points must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically in n.41, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent. That applies in the first place to the doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" (cf. n. l, above ).

6. We need finally to note, from the point of view of their representative quality, the different character of the two signataries of this Joint Declaration. The Catholic Church recognises the great effort made by the Lutheran World Federation in order to arrive, through consultation of the Synods, at a "magnus consensus", and so to give a true ecclesial value to its signature; there remains, however, the question of the real authority of such a synodal consensus, today and also tomorrow, in the life and doctrine of the Lutheran community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE WORK

7. The Catholic Church wishes to reiterate its hope that this important step forward towards agreement in doctrine on justification may be followed by further studies that will make possible a satisfactory clarification of the divergencies that still exist. Particularly desirable would be a deeper reflection on the biblical foundation that is the common basis of the doctrine on justification both for Catholics and for Lutherans. This reflection should be extended to the New Testament as a whole and not only to the Pauline writings. If it is true, indeed, that St. Paul is the New Testament author who has had most to say on this subject, and this fact calls for a certain preferential attention, substantial references to this theme are not lacking also in the other New Testament writings. As for the various ways in which Paul describes man's new condition, as mentioned in the Joint Declaration, we could add the categories of sonship and of heirs. (Gal 4:4-7; Rom 8: 14-17). Consideration of all these elements will be a great help for mutual understanding and will make it possible to resolve the divergences that still exist in the doctrine on justification.

8. Finally, it should be a common concern of Lutherans and Catholics to find a language which can make the doctrine on justification more intelligible also for men and women of our day. The fundamental truths of the salvation given by Christ and received in faith, of the primacy of grace over every human initiative, of the gift of the Holy Spirit which makes us capable of living according to our condition as children of God, and so on. These are essential aspects of the Christian message that should be a light for the believers of all times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) cfr."Joint Declaration ", n. 4: "ein hohes Mass an gemeinsamer Ausrichtung und gemeinsamem Urteil".
(2) ibid. n-5 : "einen Konsens in Grundwahrheiten der Rechtfertigungslehre" (cf. n. 13;40; 43 ).
(3) cf. Council of Trent, Decree on original sin ( DS 1515 ).
(4) cf. Council of Trent, Decree on justification, cap. 8: "... iustificatio... quae non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis" ( DS 1528 ); cf. also can.11 ( DS 15619 ).
(5) cf. Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, cap.16 (DS 1546 ), which quotes Jn 15,5: the vine and the branches.
(6) cf. ibid. DS 1545; and can.26 (DS 1576)
(7) ibid. cap.14 (cf.DS 1542)
( cf. ibid. can.29 (DS 1579); Decree on the sacrament of Penance, cap.2 (DS 1671); can.2 ( DS 1702 ).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Note, which constitutes the official Catholic Response to the text of the Joint Declaration, has been prepared by common agreement between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is signed by the President of the same Pontifical Council, which is directly responsible for the ecumenical dialogue.

JMJ,

George

columba Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:41 pm

How can there be any meaningful discission about anything let alone justification without first clearing up the mess of them both reading from two different bibles? but I suppose the recent, new "Catholic" translations (and their accompanying commentaries) has gone a long way in solving that problem. All that remains is for the Protestants to replace their 7 deleted books or, for the next "catholic" translation to delete them as well. It's a long road, but we just might get there if we keep compromising.

simple Faith Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:07 pm

Columba wrote'
"When are you going to provide the infallible Church teaching that the person who occupies the chair of Peter must always be a legitimate pope? Remember, I'm not looking for your own infallible teaching; I'm looking for a Church teaching."

Well Columba, if you can't take God's word for the seat of Peter being secure forever, I can see why you would not take my word. However I have never asked you to take my word, only the promise of Our Lord, and does the Lord not keep his promise?

It is not I that doubts our Lord's promise, nor I who suggests that He has failed to protect His Church by allowing a heretic into the Chair to destroy it. It is the accuser who must prove his allegations as it is not the defendant's job to prove his innocence. All I can do is rebut your false charges, not for the Pope’s spiritual well-being but for your own spiritual well-being Columba.

columba Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:32 pm

Simple Faith wrote:
Well Columba, if you can't take God's word for the seat of Peter being secure forever, I can see why you would not take my word. However I have never asked you to take my word, only the promise of Our Lord, and does the Lord not keep his promise?

Of course I agree that the seat of Peter is secure and has never disappeared since Christ instituted the Church. You promise that the chair will be permanently occupied. The Lord made no such promise, and we know for sure that He made no such promise for the chair has been vacant on many an occasion throughout Church history.

Simple Faith wrote:
Well Columba, if you can't take God's word for the seat of Peter being secure forever, I can see why you would not take my word. However I have never asked you to take my word, only the promise of Our Lord, and does the Lord not keep his promise?

Again SF, you are asking me to take your word as gospel that the Lord promised the chair of Peter would always be occupied (which we know in reality is not the case) and that He also promised that the chair would never be occupied by an antipope. Provide me with the teaching and I will accept it.

Simple Faith wrote:
It is not I that doubts our Lord's promise, nor I who suggests that He has failed to protect His Church by allowing a heretic into the Chair to destroy it. It is the accuser who must prove his allegations as it is not the defendant's job to prove his innocence. All I can do is rebut your false charges, not for the Pope’s spiritual well-being but for your own spiritual well-being Columba.

You need to bring this accuser forward.

simple Faith Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:17 pm

Columba said,
"Again SF, you are asking me to take your word as gospel that the Lord promised the chair of Peter would always be occupied (which we know in reality is not the case) and that He also promised that the chair would never be occupied by an antipope. Provide me with the teaching and I will accept it.

"5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

Columba regarding the text in bold, do you interpret that to teach that the chair could ever be occupied by an antipope? I think it teaches quite clearly that the Pope is the successor of Peter and gives a clear warning to those who would doubt that the Pope is not the successor of Peter.

Columba said'
"Provide me with the teaching and I will accept it."

There is the teaching now accept it.

MRyan Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:02 pm

columba wrote:

Again SF, you are asking me to take your word as gospel that the Lord promised … that the chair would never be occupied by an antipope. Provide me with the teaching and I will accept it.

No, you won’t; you won’t even accept Canon XI of the Sixth Session of Trent as it is written and as it is clearly understood by the Church.

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

You have no answer (except heresy) as to how the saints of the old dispensation were justified by the merit of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, to the exclusion of the immediate pouring forth of justifying grace and charity which, according to you, would not inhere in their hearts until after the Ascension.

Your heresy was also condemned by St. Pius V:

Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII)

[Condemned in the Bull "Ex omnibus afflictionibus," Oct. 1, 1567]

32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

42. Justice, by which an impious person is justified by faith, consists formally in the obedience of mandates, which is the justice of works; not however in any grace [habitual] infused into the soul, by which man is adopted into the sonship of God and renewed according to the interior man and made a sharer of the divine nature, so that, thus renewed through the Holy Spirit, he can in turn live well and obey the mandates of God.

Heresy, we know thy name.

Back to your challenge to SF, which goes, “you are asking me to take your word as gospel that the Lord promised … that the chair would never be occupied by an antipope. Provide me with the teaching and I will accept it.”

But that is NOT what SF is saying -- and you know it. He is saying that our Lord promised that Peter’s faith would never fail, and He promised that he would never abandon His Church by allowing the See of Peter to be stained by heresy and error (especially by a faithless anti-pope).

He promised that the faith of Peter is the very foundation of the visible Church, and that Peter is the visible Rock that holds in his very person both unities of faith and communion. “And Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VCI)

SF is saying that where the visible and universally recognized pope is, there is "The Roman Pontiff …the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." (VCI, citing the Council of Florence).

SF is saying, with Pope Leo XIII:

The Church Always Visible … 'There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him' (S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3)” and

“He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)

SF is saying the same thing as Pope Pius XII:

"Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. ... For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone." (Pope Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis Christi", 1943)

SF is saying that no antipope can sit upon the chair of Peter without violence and without there being a true Pope known to the Church, either in forced exile or killed before a true Pope can be elected.

Our Lord would NEVER allow an antipope to lay one finger on immutable Truths, irreformable Traditions or universal disciplines to the detriment (harm) of the Church, and never would He allow an apostate or a heretic to rule in place of a true Vicar, NEVER (notwithstanding the small pockets of sede’s - which means absolutely nothing). That is His promise, and He as good as His word.

This Apostolic Church never turned away from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. This is the rule of faith. All who wish to please God must study to conform the Apostolic rule of the primitive faith founded on the rock Peter, and kept by him from error. (St. Pope Agatho, AD 680; Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 276)

And,

As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because 'the highest See is judged by no one.' (Pope St. Leo IX, 1053 A.D.)

And:

We need fear little that the See of Peter may ever fall because the impregnable foundation of his Church was laid by Christ the Lord; however We must not cease to defend its authority. (INTER PRAECIPUAS; Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI on Biblical Societies, 8 May 1844)

Your completely taken-out-of-context citations from Bellarmine, Cajetan, Wernz, Szal, De Lugo and Prieras have already been sufficiently refuted, even by noted sedevacantists who have good reason to place them into their true context, not that you actually care, or would understand.

columba Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:25 pm

SF and Mike,

I have two fights going on but only one dog. He's currently involved in a battle on another thread but as soon as he wins that one he'll be back over here again. Has the Church a Visible Head on Earth. 625443

Has the Church a Visible Head on Earth. 625443

MRyan Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:21 pm

columba wrote:

Before you [SF] reply I must warn you (lest you retaliate by calling me a heretic) that to be true to the pope whom you profess to obey, you best consider these words from the counter syllabus, a document which the present pope adheres to both in word and action:

Gaudium et Spes: "[B]ut it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone."(11)
Poor Luther; if he'd been alive today he would never have had to suffer the indignity of being called a heretic. Well at least now the charge no longer stands (if that will do him any good). I suppose it will be a comfort for his present-day followers.. Well in this life anyway.

Poor columba; so confused that he does not understand that in excommunicating Luther for heresy, the Church was not judging his internal guilt, but only the objective state of heresy. And neither is the Church stating that it is not still in her power to use this corrective power of excommunication for heresy and schism when she deems it appropriate.

Poor columba, what an ecclesiological train-wreck.

Sponsored content