Question: How are we to interpret this?

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaulate Conception, 8 December 1854.

The Definition

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]

Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

I have a question.....how do we interpret the above dogmatic statement?

We must not interpret it.
We must seek a deeper understanding which will eventually enable us to dispense with the dogma and get back in te real world.

Anthony DeMello might have a good handle on this.

Quoted by RashaLampa:
Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

I have a question (a serious one).
In the above quote it states, "If anyone shall dare etc.."
Who is the word "anyone" referring to?

Another question (not a rhetorical one);
Are those who refuse to accept this teaching condemned by their own judgement and have they suffered shipwreck in the faith?

OK, next rhetorical question:

Who is that can be "separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore", who is it that "by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart."

The first person who uses "implicit" or "de jure" in their rhetorical but not so serious response, fails.

This is fun, anymore serious and rhetorical questions?

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean either question to be rhetorical. I was looking for an answer to both and you haven't attempted answering either.
I'm concerned here only with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
All I want to know is; who is the pope referring to when he says "Anyone"?
(Leaving the second question aside for now) I'll give my own understanding of the word "anyone." as used in this particular dogmatic context.
Anyone, means, any person, with no exceptions included or implied. And, as Pope Pius IX was referring to all those who now know this to be a dogma of the Church (and therefore knowingly reject it) this would include Protestants and many atheists alike, the former ridiculing the dogma as a product of depraved theology.

The dogma is well known among non-catholics as can be deduced from Virgin Records Christmas 2000 advertisement campaign where they posted a huge picture of the madonna on the main window of all their stores, referring to their wares inside as "The Immaculate Collection." (After much protest from the Catholic population they eventually took down the offensive posters).

Of whom then do you say the word "anyone" refers to?

columba wrote:Sorry Mike, I didn't mean either question to be rhetorical. I was looking for an answer to both and you haven't attempted answering either.

Oh, and I thought when you said the second question was rhetorical, it was rhetorical. Sorry.

But I did answer one of your questions, at least I thought so; perhaps you didn't get it.

columba wrote:I'm concerned here only with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

All I want to know is; who is the pope referring to when he says "Anyone"?
(Leaving the second question aside for now) I'll give my own understanding of the word "anyone." as used in this particular dogmatic context.

Anyone, means, any person, with no exceptions included or implied. And, as Pope Pius IX was referring to all those who now know this to be a dogma of the Church (and therefore knowingly reject it) this would include Protestants and many atheists alike, the former ridiculing the dogma as a product of depraved theology.

The dogma is well known among non-catholics as can be deduced from Virgin Records Christmas 2000 advertisement campaign where they posted a huge picture of the madonna on the main window of all their stores, referring to their wares inside as "The Immaculate Collection." (After much protest from the Catholic population they eventually took down the offensive posters).

Of whom then do you say the word "anyone" refers to?

I take it in two senses. “Anyone” in the universal sense; meaning anyone who knowingly “shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment”.

I realize, columba, from your previous remarks on the culpability of a member of a separated Eastern Church who has “knowledge” of the dogma of Papal Primacy, that you hold he is condemned by that very fact, for there is no excuse once the knowledge has been received (revealed); and thus, I assume you hold that the Church’s teaching (as was presented) is all wet. If I have misstated your position, let me know, and please correct the record.

I would assume then you are saying that the same applies here to the Protestant who has “knowledge” of the dogma on the Immaculate Conception, but, even if his faith tradition tells him that Scripture suggests otherwise, he cannot be excused by God from the condemnation of the Apostolic Constitution.

My only question to you is … what does the Church have to say in its definition of heresy and schism; particularly with respect to “obstinacy”?

The second sense quite obviously refers only to Catholics because only Catholics are under juridical subjection to the Roman Pontiff and can be “separated from the unity of the Church … [and] by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law”. This is basically what I said in my previous response.

My own personal belief is that anyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who in any way disparages any of the privileges and honors bestowed upon our Blessed Mother is already “signed” as one of those not favored with salvation ... unless he experiences a true conversion of heart.

If he is one of the elect ... he will experience this conversion … perhaps in a way known to God alone. But, objectively speaking, his “grievous situation” with respect to salvation is only made the more grievous by his disrespect towards for our Blessed Mother. There are some things our Lord simply will not tolerate¸ and this is one of them.

Just one nod of humble respect towards our Blessed Mother, and/or a plea for her Maternal assistance, and her intercessory graces are unleashed in torrents … such is our wonderful Catholic Faith and such is the goodness of God that He wills all men be saved.

Mryan wrote:
“Oh, and I thought when you said the second question was rhetorical, it was rhetorical. Sorry. “

I said it was “not” rhetorical; Quote; “Another question (not a rhetorical one). “ Anyway that's not important. The important thing is, that because of the clear definition given as to the meaning of the words Immaculate Conception, everyone knows from reading the dogma itself what they are meant to believe regarding this singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If anyone hasn't read the dogmatic statement then it is also possible to get a definition of the term “Immaculate Conception” in any secular dictionary. Anyone who rejects the dogma -including all non-catholic sects- knows exactly what they are rejecting.

Leaving aside then every other dogma of the Catholic Church, the obstinate refusal to believe this one dogma alone is enough to sever one from Christ and thus shut the door of salvation in ones own face. To deny one dogma is to deny them all. Even the dogmas that are held in common by other “Christian” sects are still denied in so far as they are not held by the operation of supernatural faith, but merely by human reason alone which cannot save anyone. That is why the Church can state that to deny one dogma, is to deny them all.

Tell me mike. have I said anything above that isn't true?
I'm not testing your orthodoxy here; I'm testing mine.

I realize, columba, from your previous remarks on the culpability of a member of a separated Eastern Church who has “knowledge” of the dogma of Papal Primacy, that you hold he is condemned by that very fact, for there is no excuse once the knowledge has been received (revealed); and thus, I assume you hold that the Church’s teaching (as was presented) is all wet. If I have misstated your position, let me know, and please correct the record.

Likewise as the Church teaches that to deny one dogma is to deny them all, then yes, he is condemned, but definitely not by me, but by his own obstinacy. I don't at all believe the Churches teaching is "all wet". I think the Churches teaching is very clear.
What I do believe to be "all wet" are those statements which present mere, unknowable possibilities dressed up as doctrine while hiding behind the non-infallible nature of the same, and lead the faithful to believe that these are in fact the true teachings of the Church. Also certain books which start with a disclaimer acknowledging personal fallibility and a temporary suspension of ones high office while quoting heretics and schismatics favorably in support of the theological musings contained therein.

I would assume then you are saying that the same applies here to the Protestant who has “knowledge” of the dogma on the Immaculate Conception, but, even if his faith tradition tells him that Scripture suggests otherwise, he cannot be excused by God from the condemnation of the Apostolic Constitution.

By calling it "His Faith Tradition" to me is a mere camouflage of truth by political correctness. The proper term "Schismatic Belief" reflects the truth in a clear way.
From what the Church has always taught it is quite clear that God's condemnation is averted by repentance and not by obstinacy.
His schismatic belief may tell him that scripture suggests otherwise, but that's due to his schismatic belief and not the words of scripture. Scripture tells him rather, "Who ever hears you, hears Me."

My only question to you is … what does the Church have to say in its definition of heresy and schism; particularly with respect to “obstinacy”?

Most Catholics (even semi-knowledgeable ones) know the Church definition of heresy and schism and also what is meant by obstinacy. Why do you ask? Have the definitions changed?
If the definitions haven't changed then the following must still apply precisely as in its original wording.

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

MRyan wrote:
The second sense quite obviously refers only to Catholics because only Catholics are under juridical subjection to the Roman Pontiff and can be “separated from the unity of the Church … [and] by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law”. This is basically what I said in my previous response.

Obviously this second sense cannot apply to those who are already outside the Church since they have already incurred excommunication.

My own personal belief is that anyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who in any way disparages any of the privileges and honors bestowed upon our Blessed Mother is already “signed” as one of those not favored with salvation ... unless he experiences a true conversion of heart.

If he is one of the elect ... he will experience this conversion … perhaps in a way known to God alone. But, objectively speaking, his “grievous situation” with respect to salvation is only made the more grievous by his disrespect towards for our Blessed Mother. There are some things our Lord simply will not tolerate¸ and this is one of them.

Just one nod of humble respect towards our Blessed Mother, and/or a plea for her Maternal assistance, and her intercessory graces are unleashed in torrents … such is our wonderful Catholic Faith and such is the goodness of God that He wills all men be saved.

Can't and won't argue with that.

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
“Oh, and I thought when you said the second question was rhetorical, it was rhetorical. Sorry. “

I said it was “not” rhetorical; Quote; “Another question (not a rhetorical one). “ Anyway that's not important.

My mistake; but I hope you'll understand that by saying your next question is not rhetorical, this suggests that your previous "serious" question might have been. Anyway, as you said, no big deal, just as it's no big deal that you thought I did not even attempt to answer either one of your questions, when I did. Simple misunderstanding.

columba wrote:The important thing is, that because of the clear definition given as to the meaning of the words Immaculate Conception, everyone knows from reading the dogma itself what they are meant to believe regarding this singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If anyone hasn't read the dogmatic statement then it is also possible to get a definition of the term “Immaculate Conception” in any secular dictionary. Anyone who rejects the dogma -including all non-catholic sects- knows exactly what they are rejecting.

That's the whole point. No, they may NOT know what they are rejecting in the sense that because the Pope declared it so, it must be true - when they have a whole tradition that tells them otherwise. This may not excuse if they KNOW it is the truth and reject it anyway, but it might excuse if their "rejection" is not obstinately opposed to the truth and their good-will in seeking the same (and accepting it once they realize the truth). There was a time when the Church considered all Protestants heretics and schismatics ... not any more; though objectively they still remain in a grievous separation from the one true Church.

columba wrote:Leaving aside then every other dogma of the Catholic Church, the obstinate refusal to believe this one dogma alone is enough to sever one from Christ and thus shut the door of salvation in ones own face. To deny one dogma is to deny them all. Even the dogmas that are held in common by other “Christian” sects are still denied in so far as they are not held by the operation of supernatural faith, but merely by human reason alone which cannot save anyone. That is why the Church can state that to deny one dogma, is to deny them all.

Tell me mike. have I said anything above that isn't true?
I'm not testing your orthodoxy here; I'm testing mine.

You are correct when you say "the obstinate refusal to believe this one dogma alone is enough to sever one from Christ and thus shut the door of salvation in ones own face", but you are wrong to infer from this that non-Catholic "Christians" cannot possess supernatural faith when they err in their interpretation of another dogma for which they may not be culpable.

In other words, why do you use the word "obstinate" if it doesn't make any difference to the salvation of someone who is not obstinate or pertinacious in his mistaken understanding of a dogma? Does that apply only to Catholics?

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:I realize, columba, from your previous remarks on the culpability of a member of a separated Eastern Church who has “knowledge” of the dogma of Papal Primacy, that you hold he is condemned by that very fact, for there is no excuse once the knowledge has been received (revealed); and thus, I assume you hold that the Church’s teaching (as was presented) is all wet. If I have misstated your position, let me know, and please correct the record.

Likewise as the Church teaches that to deny one dogma is to deny them all, then yes, he is condemned, but definitely not by me, but by his own obstinacy. I don't at all believe the Churches teaching is "all wet". I think the Churches teaching is very clear.

Correct.

columba wrote:What I do believe to be "all wet" are those statements which present mere, unknowable possibilities dressed up as doctrine while hiding behind the non-infallible nature of the same, and lead the faithful to believe that these are in fact the true teachings of the Church. Also certain books which start with a disclaimer acknowledging personal fallibility and a temporary suspension of ones high office while quoting heretics and schismatics favorably in support of the theological musings contained therein.

Are you suggesting that the teaching within the Papal Encyclical by Pope JPII I cited at length is "all wet" and is representative of "those statements which present mere, unknowable possibilities dressed up as doctrine while hiding behind the non-infallible nature of the same, and lead the faithful to believe that these are in fact the true teachings of the Church"?

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
I would assume then you are saying that the same applies here to the Protestant who has “knowledge” of the dogma on the Immaculate Conception, but, even if his faith tradition tells him that Scripture suggests otherwise, he cannot be excused by God from the condemnation of the Apostolic Constitution.

By calling it "His Faith Tradition" to me is a mere camouflage of truth by political correctness. The proper term "Schismatic Belief" reflects the truth in a clear way.

From what the Church has always taught it is quite clear that God's condemnation is averted by repentance and not by obstinacy.

I see; so culpability for a "schismatic belief" is not averted by one's non-obstinacy, and what the Church teaches in this matter is just plain wrong. Wow. As I suspected, you hold that "culpability" in the matter of obstinacy is irrelevant.

columba wrote:
His schismatic belief may tell him that scripture suggests otherwise, but that's due to his schismatic belief and not the words of scripture. Scripture tells him rather, "Who ever hears you, hears Me."

I see, the "no-excuses" doctrine renders the Church's teaching moot.

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:My only question to you is … what does the Church have to say in its definition of heresy and schism; particularly with respect to “obstinacy”?

Most Catholics (even semi-knowledgeable ones) know the Church definition of heresy and schism and also what is meant by obstinacy. Why do you ask? Have the definitions changed?

It should be obvious why I ask; and it is obvious by your answer that to God and the Church the definition is irrelevant to one's culpability and salvation - he is damned either way.

columba wrote:
If the definitions haven't changed then the following must still apply precisely as in its original wording.

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

But every Protestant, Jew and Muslim who will be saved will be "joined" to the Church before they leave this land of the living. Please show me where this Bull defines that this "joining" cannot be accomplished trough a supernatural faith and charity, precisely as the Church teaches. Any misunderstanding in dogma will be cleared away upon one's passing from life to eternal life.

columba wrote:
By calling it "His Faith Tradition" to me is a mere camouflage of truth by political correctness. The proper term "Schismatic Belief" reflects the truth in a clear way. From what the Church has always taught it is quite clear that God's condemnation is averted by repentance and not by obstinacy.

His schismatic belief may tell him that scripture suggests otherwise, but that's due to his schismatic belief and not the words of scripture. Scripture tells him rather, "Who ever hears you, hears Me."

Interesting choice of Scripture verse, Luke 10:16.

You realize of course that our Lord was addressing the 72 disciples as He sent them out as lambs among wolves.

So let me ask you ... If a Protestant learns from you that he is free to "reject" certain "non-infallible" teachings of the Pope in his ordinary magisterium; if he learns from you that a Pope may err on a matter of doctrine that is taught to the universal Church; that the pope and all of his Bishops (the "72") may in fact be in opposition to a dogma of the faith and need not be "heard", can you give me one good reason from Scripture that can explain to the Protestant why he is obliged under pain of loss to believe everything that the Church tells him is true, when many Catholics he encounters basically tells the pope and the disciples "I will not hear you"?

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
By calling it "His Faith Tradition" to me is a mere camouflage of truth by political correctness. The proper term "Schismatic Belief" reflects the truth in a clear way. From what the Church has always taught it is quite clear that God's condemnation is averted by repentance and not by obstinacy.

His schismatic belief may tell him that scripture suggests otherwise, but that's due to his schismatic belief and not the words of scripture. Scripture tells him rather, "Who ever hears you, hears Me."

Interesting choice of Scripture verse, Luke 10:16.

You realize of course that our Lord was addressing the 72 disciples as He sent them out as lambs among wolves.


So let me ask you ... If a Protestant learns from you that he is free to "reject" certain "non-infallible" teachings of the Pope in his ordinary magisterium; if he learns from you that a Pope may err on a matter of doctrine that is taught to the universal Church; that the pope and all of his Bishops (the "72") may in fact be in opposition to a dogma of the faith and need not be "heard", can you give me one good reason from Scripture that can explain to the Protestant why he is obliged under pain of loss to believe everything that the Church tells him is true, when many Catholics he encounters basically tells the pope and the disciples "I will not hear you"?

I'll reply to your previous post in due course but this one will be quicker to go through.

I knew the choice of Scripture, Luke 10:16, would grab your attention.
The Lord was sending the 72 on a mission and among the instructions He gave them were; to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom and heal the sick.
They were to proclaim what the Lord Himself proclaimed and do the works the Lord Himself had done. After carrying out His instructions they came back rejoicing saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”

I didn't see anywhere in Luke 10 or anywhere in the bible where anyone was told to proclaim that all religions are good and all are a means of salvation.

I would tell my Protestant friend the truth. That is; there's much confusion abounding since Vatican II as to what we are meant to believe and what we are not. The current Pope and the Church hierarchy have stopped teaching and instead provide some ambiguous, theological musings that not even they themselves are capable of defining.
However, I would also tell him that the Church is still alive and will always be so til the end of time, and even if her teaching authority has fallen asleep on the job, there remains for the edification of the faithful an almost 2,000 yr treasury of tradition, dogma and many instances of approved prophetic revelation that will sustain them through the crisis, and, "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

For a scripture reference I would read him (2 Th 2: 15) "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
If he does that he will have the benefit of listening to a few hundred popes while the last 2 or 3 popes writings are still being deciphered.

Columba,

I do not think the Protestant would be impressed with that explanation since in the end it is just blanket hypocrisy. He already listens to Scripture and tradition and will tell you that he does the same thing you do when it comes to accepting the authority of those who say they are God’s lawful ministers but preach a false and corrupted doctrine. Just like you, he sifts everything for the truth and rejects what is false. He considers “defined” only that which is taught in Scripture as the infallible word of God.

You admit, the Protestant would say, that your so-called “disciples” are wolves among the sheep which is why Scripture is his rule of faith and not those who claim some divinely appointed authority over Gods’ true Church of believers when you admit they have “fallen asleep on the job” and have “stopped teaching” and provide, rather, corrupted doctrines they cannot “define”. Why should they “define” anything when the first disciples “defined” nothing and only preached the infallible word of God?

Perhaps if the false teachers of your "true Church" would perform a miracle or two they might be taken seriously as our Lord's true disciples ... and not as the bogus band of charlatans you suggest they are.

He might ask why the only thing you are bound to believe is that which is “defined” by your Church when even here you “reject” the understanding of those definitions as they are taught by your own Church that has “fallen asleep” and “stopped teaching”. You are forever razing Protestants over “private interpretation”, he would say; but you do that all day long when you accuse your own popes of teaching false doctrines that are opposed to previous “definitions”.

In fact, you are forever challenging your popes to "define" their false or unorthodox doctrines so you will know they are true. But how often does your Church "define" anything and what is this so-called "ordinary" teaching authority of your pope if you do not have to hear anything he teaches unless he "defines" it?

You say the “true” Church is still alive and can be found in that “remnant” of believers, who, even “reduced to a handful … are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." Well, guess what, the Protestant will tell you he already belongs to the “true Church of Jesus Christ” and the “remnant” of true believers who search the Scriptures and tradition for the truth and hold fast to what is true while rejecting the false teachings of wolves in sheep’s clothing, just like you tell him he should do. In fact, he would say, he already “stand[s] firm and hold[s] to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”.

So, he has taken your advise and rejects all of the false teachings of the Catholic Church; he continues to sift the teachings of those who claim to be sent by God to teach the true Gospel, and he accepts only that which he knows to be true.

In fact, he agrees with you 100% in the condemnation of your own false Church for teaching the specious heresies that all religions are good, that false religions can be means of salvation; that Muslims and Jews can be saved without an explicit faith in Christ, and he rejects the false ecumenism of your popes and the Catholic Church, just like you.

Well, welcome to the true remnant of believers … seems you have a lot in common with your Protestant friend. Just don’t be too disappointed when you try and sell him on Luke 10:16 … he might laugh at your hypocrisy as you give him a knowing wink.

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

columba wrote:
For a scripture reference I would read him (2 Th 2: 15) "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
If he does that he will have the benefit of listening to a few hundred popes while the last 2 or 3 popes writings are still being deciphered.

Your Protestant friend would ask if Pope John Paul II is part of that “we” that includes St. Peter and St. Paul who were “sent” by our Lord to pass on His teachings “by word of mouth or by letter” to which all are obliged to “stand firm and hold”.

One teaching of the "we" passed on by “letter” is found in the Papal Encyclical Redemptoris missio, “On the permanent validity of the Church's missionary mandate”:

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (Pope JPII, Dec. 7, 1990)

Your Protestant friend will ask you if this “letter” addressed to the universal Church is from that same authority as the “we” of St. Paul who was sent by God to teach “by word of mouth or by letter”. And if not, why not; and if it is but his authority to pass on the truth by letter is rejected in this instance because he passes on a false doctrine, what makes you any different from the Protestant who sifts for himself what is true and rejects what is false while, precisely as you say, rejecting the authority of those who falsely “lead the faithful to believe that these are in fact the true teachings of the Church".

St. Paul said to “stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”, thereby suggesting that by the very authority the “we” possess we may know they are Christ’s true disciples and not the wolves in sheep’s clothing who say they are the “we” sent by our Lord, but are not, and teach a false doctrine.

Your Pope, the Protestant would say, is Christ’s true disciple sent by God to preach the truth by word or by letter, or he isn’t.

You say he isn’t, or is only when he teaches the true Gospel; to which your Protestant friend would say, “Physician, heal thyself”, but welcome to the “remnant” of true believers.

columba wrote:
I didn't see anywhere in Luke 10 or anywhere in the bible where anyone was told to proclaim that all religions are good and all are a means of salvation.

I would tell my Protestant friend the truth.

Might I suggest you start with this truth:

COMMENTARY ON THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH REGARDING THE BOOK TOWARD A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM BY FATHER JACQUES DUPUIS, S.J.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010312_dupuis-2_en.html

“Indeed, a careful reading of the book reveals certain ambiguities and difficulties on doctrinal points of great importance, which could lead the reader to erroneous or harmful opinions. The Notification, making reference to the Declaration Dominus Iesus, sets out five doctrinal points, which, independent of the author’s intentions, are ambiguously formulated and inadequately explained in his book and thus could give rise to errors and misunderstandings.

First of all, faith in Jesus Christ, the sole and universal mediator of salvation for all humanity is reaffirmed. Next, the unicity and universality of Jesus Christ, Son and Word of the Father, the fulfilment of the saving plan of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is reaffirmed. There is no salvific Trinitarian economy independent of that of the incarnate Word.

In the second place, the Church’s faith in Jesus Christ, the fulfilment and fullness of divine revelation, is reasserted, countering the opinion that the revelation of Jesus Christ is limited, incomplete or imperfect. The seeds of truth and goodness that exist in other religions are gifts of grace of the one mediation of Christ and of his Spirit of holiness.

With regard to the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit, it is restated that the Spirit working after Jesus’ resurrection is always the Spirit of Christ sent by the Father, who works in a salvific way also outside the visible Church. It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to hold that the Holy Spirit’s salvific action may be more extensive than the one universal salvific economy of the incarnate Word.

Furthermore, since the Church is sign and instrument of salvation for all people, the opinion that the various religions are ways of salvation complementary to the Church is rejected as erroneous.

Lastly, while recognizing that elements of truth and goodness exist in other religions, there are no grounds in Catholic theology for considering these religions as such as ways of salvation especially since they contain omissions, inadequacies and errors regarding fundamental truths about God, man and the world. Nor can their sacred texts be considered complementary to the Old Testament, which is the immediate preparation for the Christ event.

This Notification seeks to underscore the gravity and danger of certain statements which, while apparently moderate, precisely for this reason risk being easily and uncritically accepted as compatible with the Church’s doctrine, even by those closely involved in interreligious dialogue. In the present context of a society that is indeed increasingly multireligious and multicultural, the Church recognizes that she urgently needs to express her doctrinal identity and witness in love to her unshakeable faith in Jesus Christ, source of truth and salvation.

6.With regard to the “tone” of the Notification, it must be noted that it is not a lengthy or complex document, but simply a series of brief declarative statements. This form of communication is not a sign of authoritarianism or unjustified harshness, but is rather characteristic of the literary genre of magisterial pronouncements whose aim is to set out precise points of doctrine, to censure errors or ambiguities, and to indicate the degree of assent that is required of the faithful.

This literary genre, the same as that of the Declaration Dominus Iesus, is of course distinct from the other modes of expression used by the Magisterium to present its teaching, which take into account the purpose of the text. There are texts which are expository and illustrative, containing ample and precise reasoning on doctrines of faith and on pastoral questions (for example, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, many Encyclical Letters of the Holy Father, and in our specific case, the Encyclical Redemptoris missio). There are texts which are exhortative or directive in order to address problems of a spiritual or pastoral-practical nature.

By the clear indicative/declaratory tone of a magisterial Document — typical of a Declaration or Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and similar to the earlier Decrees issued by the Holy Office — it is intended to communicate to the faithful that these are not debatable opinions or disputed questions, but rather central truths of the Christian faith, which are denied or seriously threatened by specific theological interpretations. The tone therefore belongs to the content, since it must be consistent with the particular goal of the text. Adherence to the Person of Jesus, to his words and his mystery of salvation, demands a simple and clear response of faith, like that, for example, found in the Creeds, which belong to the prayer of the Church.

The efficacy of the Notification, both for its understanding and in its call for an adherence of faith, lies precisely in its tone. To repeat, it is not a tone of imposition, but one of declaration and solemn celebration of faith. It is the tone used in the Professio Fidei.(6) Indeed, since her earliest days, the Church has professed faith in the crucified and risen Lord, bringing together the fundamental contents of her belief in certain formulas. And we know that the Creed is not a collection of abstract truths, but a rule of faith that sustains life, prayer, witness, action and mission: lex credendi, like lex vivendi, orandi, agendi et evangelizandi. It is also clear that the proclamation of the truth of the Catholic faith also implies refuting error and censuring ambiguous or dangerous positions which lead to confusion and uncertainty among the Christian people.

Thus it would certainly be erroneous to maintain that the indicative/declaratory tone of the Declaration Dominus Iesus and of this Notification marks a step backwards in contrast to the literary genre and the explanatory and pastoral character of the magisterial documents from the Second Vatican Council and after. It would be equally erroneous and unfounded to hold that after the Second Vatican Council the literary genre of the censuring/declarative type should be discarded or excluded from the authoritative interventions of the Magisterium. The unfortunate fact must be stated that the criticism, coming from various sources, that the general 'tone' of Dominus Iesus is far different from that of texts such as the Encyclical Letters Redemptoris mission and Ut unum sint, shows by its very nature that it has failed to take account of the different purposes of these different documents, which, though not identical, are in no way contradictory. The Declaration Dominus Iesus, like the present Notification, merely intends to reaffirm specific truths of faith and of Catholic doctrine, pointing out the relative degree of theological certainty and thus delineating the sure doctrinal foundations in order to preserve the integrity of the deposit of faith. In this way, the Declaration guarantees also that interreligious dialogue — as also the ecumenical dialogue between the Christian confessions — will develop as a ‘dialogue of truth’.

Finally, the simple reaffirmation of truth expresses the unity of faith in the Triune God and thus solidifies communion in the Church. Adherence to the Truth is adherence to Christ and to his Church, and constitutes the true space of human freedom: ‘There are many paths which lead to truth, but since Christian truth has a salvific value, any one of these paths may be taken, as long as it leads to the final goal, that is to the Revelation of Jesus Christ’.(7) Indeed, Christ is ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’ (Jn 14:6): ‘The truth which is Christ, imposes itself as an all-embracing authority. The Christian mystery, in fact, overcomes all barriers of time and space, and accomplishes the unity of the human family’.{8}”

Endnotes:

{6} On 1 July 1988, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published both the Professio fidei, addressed to the members of the faithful called to exercise an office in the name of the Church, and a special Oath of fidelity, concerning the particular duties inherent in the office to be assumed. The Professio fidei, in addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, includes three paragraphs which are intended to make a clearer distinction between the type of truth professed and the corresponding assent required. On 18 May 1998, the Holy Father John Paul II issued the “Moto proprio” Ad tuendam fidem, in order to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Church new “norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church”. On 28 June of that same year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the “Professio fidei”. The Commentary gives a more detailed explanation of the three paragraphs, together with concrete examples.

{7} John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, n. 38.

{8} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, n. 23.

How about some more context? I prefer the Douay Rheims translation:

2 Thessalonians

[1] And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? [6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: [11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, [16] Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

St. Paul describes "the son of perdition" "sitting in the temple of God," and a lot more of great import. And then he says, "Therefore . . . hold to the "traditions." This will be a defense against the invasion of the temple by the son of perdition.

One could very well read this as a warning for the aggiornamento and departure from tradition to come in the latter part of the Twentieth Century. There's not much "tradition" in that paragraph from JPII's "epistle."

As always, Mike, you make a strong argument, analogizing the spirit of one protest to another, but that argument doesn't fare well in my view when it comes to 2 Thessalonians.

Sorry, Tornpage, but those are the whisperings of the sedevacantists and rad-trads who imagine the Holy See being taken over by the anti-Christ pod people so that even the elect may be fooled as the Holy See becomes stained with error; a heresy condemned by the Church.

This is the old heresy of pitting the epistle passed on by St. Paul against the “false epistle” of Christ’s true Vicar, Pope John Paul II, who affirmed quite clearly in his Papal Encyclical, without “defining” anything, that he was speaking with one magisterial voice with his predecessors.

As my post on the “Notification” makes clear, Redemptoris missio and Dominus Iesus, while having different purposes, “are in no way contradictory”; and neither is Redemptoris missio a contradiction to “tradition”, but only to one’s false impression of tradition; meaning, the erroneous idea that any "development" that does not fit into one's pre-determined traditional box must be false ... "and who cares what the latest series of popes teach ... we have 'tradition' on our side".

The Church is visible, the Church is infallible and the Church is indefectible, and these specious notions of a Holy See stained with error, with the divine assistance gone into hiding or on extended holiday, renders meaningless that very divine assistance VCI defined would never fail in the person of Peter, and that this same divine guidance is with the Church STILL TODAY.

The “whispers” continue ... and they can be traced to only one source … the Father of Lies.

And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: [11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, [16] Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

Tornpage wrote:

St. Paul describes "the son of perdition" "sitting in the temple of God," and a lot more of great import. And then he says, "Therefore . . . hold to the "traditions." This will be a defense against the invasion of the temple by the son of perdition.

One could very well read this as a warning for the aggiornamento and departure from tradition to come in the latter part of the Twentieth Century. There's not much "tradition" in that paragraph from JPII's "epistle."

As always, Mike, you make a strong argument, analogizing the spirit of one protest to another, but that argument doesn't fare well in my view when it comes to 2 Thessalonians.

The First Vatican Council:

Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines.

What is more, the Church herself by reason of her astonishing propagation, her outstanding holiness and her inexhaustible fertility in every kind of goodness, by her Catholic unity and her unconquerable stability, is a kind of great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontrovertible evidence of her own divine mission.

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].

The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

For 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, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that 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 [46].

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 [47].

For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

Speaking of context; as sure as the sun rises the following citation from Galatians will soon appear:

“I wonder that you are so soon removed, from him that called you to the grace of Christ, to another gospel: Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” {Galatians 1: 6-8}

Very well; but given the context of VCI and the magisterial “we” of Papal Primacy “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”, is it really credible to cite Galatians against the pope who is alleged to have taught (and continues to teach) a false doctrine through a magisterial Papal Encyclical that is in opposition to Scripture and to dogma?

Haydock also supplies some much needed context:

Haydock Commentary Ver. 6-7. This was about three or four years after their conversion. The apostle knowing very well how to suit his discourse to his auditors, in this epistle makes use of a more severe and harsh address than is observable in his other epistles. The reason is, the Galatians were a less civilized people, and had already shewn the little attachment they had to their spiritual father. (Calmet)

--- To another gospel: which is not another. That is, it is not properly another, because they pretended to be Christians, and teach the faith: and yet it was in some measure another, because changed by such teachers with a mixture of errors, particularly that all converted Gentiles were to observe the Jewish law: and in this sense, they are said to subvert, or destroy the gospel of Christ: so that the apostle hesitates not to pronounce and repeat an anathema, a curse upon all that preach any thing besides, that is, in point of religion, not agreeing with what he had taught. I cannot omit here a reflection, which St. Chrysostom makes on the 7th verse. Where are they, saith he, who condemn us (Catholics) for the differences we have with heretics? and who pretend there is no such essential difference betwixt us and them, so as to judge them excluded from the communion of the Catholic Church, out of which there is no salvation, unless perhaps through ignorance.

--- Let them hear what St. Paul says, that they destroyed the gospel who made any such innovations: to wit, by introducing again as necessary some of the Jewish ceremonies, even at a time when the Christians, who had been Jews, might lawfully use them, and even they who had been Gentiles. St. Paul says, this is to change and destroy the gospel; he repeats anathema against them. Let them hear, and take notice of this, who pretend that the unity of the one Catholic faith is sufficiently maintained by all Christian societies, that agreeing, as they say, in fundamentals, their faith is a saving faith: that the council of Trent, without reason, pronounced such anathemas against them: that all Catholics are uncharitable for denying them to be in the way to salvation, when they make Scripture alone, as interpreted by their private judgment, the only rule of their faith. They may as well accuse not only St. Chrysostom but also St. Paul, of uncharitableness, &c. (Witham)

MRyan wrote:
Your Protestant friend would ask if Pope John Paul II is part of that “we” that includes St. Peter and St. Paul who were “sent” by our Lord to pass on His teachings “by word of mouth or by letter” to which all are obliged to “stand firm and hold”.

One teaching of the "we" passed on by “letter” is found in the Papal Encyclical Redemptoris missio, “On the permanent validity of the Church's missionary mandate”:

It's not just my Protestant friend who might ask that question.
There are many bishops and priests who ask the same question and provide some startling evidence that JP2 had departed from some fundamental truths of the Catholic Faith.
If your asking if I believe he is part of the "we?"- If I were to give a definitive Yes, I would be lying. If I gave a definitive No, I would still be lying.
Besides; the lack of clarity in Redemptoris Missio wouldn't make it the ideal starting point for evangelization.

Your Protestant friend will ask you if this “letter” addressed to the universal Church is from that same authority as the “we” of St. Paul who was sent by God to teach “by word of mouth or by letter”. And if not, why not; and if it is but his authority to pass on the truth by letter is rejected in this instance because he passes on a false doctrine, what makes you any different from the Protestant who sifts for himself what is true and rejects what is false while, precisely as you say, rejecting the authority of those who falsely “lead the faithful to believe that these are in fact the true teachings of the Church".

My Protestant friend asks a lot of questions, doesn't he?
I would have to tell him that when addressing this letter to the universal Church, JP2 failed to take into consideration that the majority of its members don't have a degree in cryptology. One can only accept or reject something if they know what is being proposed for belief. In fact I don't thing there's anyhing being proposed for belief in Redemptoris Missio.

St. Paul said to “stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”, thereby suggesting that by the very authority the “we” possess we may know they are Christ’s true disciples and not the wolves in sheep’s clothing who say they are the “we” sent by our Lord, but are not, and teach a false doctrine.

Precisely: If they would only do what St. Paul has asked and pass on the teachings and in a way that the faithful can understand what in fact they are teaching. It would make it possible to deduce whether or not they are actually wolves in sheep's clothing or true shepherds.

Your Pope, the Protestant would say, is Christ’s true disciple sent by God to preach the truth by word or by letter, or he isn’t.

I would say to him, "If he in fact is a true Pope sent by God, then it's your lucky day as the present Pope's teaching (following on from Pope JP2's understanding) makes it clear that, "...this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny one's own faith history. Absolutely not!"- so, my dear Protestant friend you are probably safe enough where you are."

Might I suggest you start with this truth:

COMMENTARY ON THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH REGARDING THE BOOK TOWARD A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM BY FATHER JACQUES DUPUIS, S.J.

A proper definition of "the Church" would be a welcome starting point for everyone.

Well, the text that I was thinking of was from the Olivet discourse, you know:

[21] For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. [22] And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. [23] Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. [24] For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. [25] Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

Who has the gravitas and power to possibly deceive the "elect," Bishops Dolan, Kelly or McKenna, Father Cekada, their rabble in Ohio, the rabble in New York, or the worldwide "Catholic" Church with its "pontiff," Benedict XVI?

For all your bloviating, the quote by JPII in Redemptoris Missio still lacks tradition, even though you try to stick the label on it. But, alas, the label "Rome" is no longer synonymous with tradition.

I think columba and I are going to keep you quite busy, my friend.

And remember, implicit faith is the darling offspring sprung in the 16th Century, who came out of the house into the public eye even later. It would hardly be among the traditions St. Paul told us, in the First Century, to "hold firm" to.

And talk about writings on the wall to read, this is a telling little one: Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

§1. We considering a matter of this kind to be of so grave and perilous a nature that even the Roman Pontiff, who is the viceregent of God and the Lord Jesus Christ upon earth, having a plenitude of power over nations and kingdoms, judging all and being judged of none in this present world, may nevertheless be reproved if he is found deviating from the faith-and (considering moreover) that where there is greater danger there should be also a fuller and more diligent consultation, lest false prophets or others having secular jurisdiction also, should entangle miserably the souls of the faithful, and should draw down with them into perdition and destruction the innumerable peoples committed to their charge and government in spiritual or temporal matters, and so it might happen that we should see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, in the holy place ...

Talk about prescience!

Perhaps it time the two of you move this over to the sede sub-forum where you can fantasize to your heart's content about the person of Peter sitting in the Chair otherwise known as the "abomination of desolation", and the Keys he holds and wields are the Keys to hell.

"I am with you always; well, kind of ... I'll be with the CMRI and the SSPV and My little remnant of believers in upstate NY, New Mexico or wherever; but not necessarily with that joker in the Vatican ... good help is so hard to find these days."

As it is, I'm done with this .... eight pages (and two threads) and we're going backwards. I don't think there is anything left to say ... so I said it twice.

Ok Mike. Before being handcuffed and incarcerated in the sede forum, I resolve to pull back from fantazising and stick solely to fact.
Total and unreasonable submission to every word that proceeds from the mouth of a Pope is not something that the Church ever endorsed as being part of Catholic faith or efficacious for the soul in every occasion. On the other hand, the Church does teach that total submission to the dogmas of the Church are a requirement for every Catholic.
The fact that I have doubts concerning what is being proposed for belief today is due to these proposals being in conflict with certain established dogmas of the Church.
Furthermore, the reason I feel justified in questioning the orthodoxy of certain things that are being proposed for belief, is because I don't belief they are actually being proposed as matters of doctrine that require any level of assent by me or anyone else who sees the contradictions. The fact that you claim that they are indeed matters which require assent of the will and intellect, leaves me with the other alternative; that being, that those who propose these teachings are not true teachers.

I can blame Daniel, Paul, John, Belarmine, St Pope Pius the X and their ilk for filling my head with such nonsense; foretelling us and warning us of what might happen if we don't take heed; not to mention Our Lady of Fatima and those darn dogmatic definitions that declared for all time what must be believed.
Most of all I blame my own eyes and ears. I see a Church crumbling to dust all around and hear embarrassed voices from the pulpit apologizing for the Catholic faith and preaching tolerance for everyone except for those few crack-pot, traditionalist, trouble-making, lay fools. On that evidence at least – that of my eyes and ears- I believe I am not hallucinating. I wouldn't entrust the welfare of my pet dog to any of them, never mind the welfare of my eternal soul.
In a conservative estimate I would say that 95% of under forties here in Ireland, wouldn't know a truth of the faith if it jumped up and bit them. It's not their fault that they've been baptized in a tidal-wave of modernism, but someone for sure is responsible for opening the floodgates and, even more culpable are those who have the power to close them but refuse to do so while looking on as the destruction continues.

Yes. I do have my doubts, but doubts alone are insufficient for drawing conclusions. While I wait with baited breath for something truly Catholic to come from the mouth (or pen ) of the Pope, he instead adds one controversial statement to another that has everyone must twisting and shaping them into conformity with even the liberal theology of Vat II never mind the traditional theology of the Church.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the requirement and thus far your arguments (and awareness of my own fallibility) have kept me erring on the side of caution while nevertheless remaining in a kind of limbo awaiting the next development good or bad that might produce something irrefutable either way.
It was the incredulity of the faithful that permitted pedophilia and pederasty to continue unabated in the Church for decades, and the same incredulity may be still present concerning other unutterables.

I wonder what Pope Pius X would make of it all if he were still on earth today. Would he be shuffling off to the sede camp the way he was shuffled out of Vatican II Council while all the liberal theologies of the day were given pride of place?
In the link (below) I see the possibility of another man being escorted to the sede holding room if he keeps digging. Thus far he's let the buck stop with the bishops. In secular corporations the buck usually stops with the directors.

https://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/0/rRKVC9oMle8

Nice rant; hope you got it off your chest.

Of course, I hear you.

But the Irish would still have the Faith if they wanted it; or had it to begin with. But I understand how easy it is to place the blame entirely on Rome for your country’s slide into Catholic oblivion (where there is much blame) – after all, Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, can only follow the lead of their priests and cannot think or act for themselves. But, where were the faithful Catholics of Ireland that we hear so much about when your Church was being taken over by modernists and queers?

Where was the Faith? Apparently, all of the smells and bells and faux orthodoxy were no match for the zeitgeist. Instead of running the modernist Bishops and priests out of town, they were embraced and the Church would eventually become irrelevant.

Ask yourself how the Irish (and the Americans) could have so quickly abandoned tradition and have fallen so quickly into the spirit of the world while rejecting their past with not so much as a fond regret if the Faith had been so firmly implanted before VCII as we like to pretend. The queers and modernists were at work, as Pope St. Pius X knew, and there was something amiss in Ireland long before VCII; and I doubt if the finger of solid orthodoxy and tradition could have plugged the dike, though the complete takeover in Ireland by the modernists is nothing short of diabolical.

If; however, you are saying that the Pope is a modernist, or that the Holy See has been stained with error and the Church has failed in doctrine and practice; then take it to the sede forum.

The Church’s mistake, in my opinion, was to think that she could meet the world on its own terms, and to naively believe that man was a reasonable animal who would see the truth if it was presented in the spirit of ecumenical harmony.

While she needed to confront and meet the modern age, she should have done so on her own terms while opening the Church to a true restoration. Believe it or not, that was the intention of VCII. But perhaps she also knew what we didn’t; that the damn was about to break and she could either batten down the traditional hatches in a siege-like mentality and lose who knows how many souls to schism, or she could take the chosen pastoral path of peace and “dialogue” … and hope for the best ... I know, "so how did that work out?"

No one is more upset and disgusted by the sins of Churchmen than am I; but, that you would equate malfeasance in government and discipline with malfeasance in doctrine is where we part company, and I am not buying it.

Michael Voris is not going down the old sede trail … but calling it the way he sees it ... and good for him.

Take it to the sede sub-forum where it belongs.