BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

The Astounding Heresy in Benedict XVI’s Book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood by “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Ignatius Press)

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

Well, there you have it. Benedict XVI not only tells us that Protestants are not heretics, but that Protestantism itself is not heresy. This is clearly Benedict XVI’s worst and most explicit heresy so far (this artical was written in 2005, so there are many many more since then), besides his teaching that Christ may not be the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. This is such an incredible heresy that there is absolutely nothing that anyone on earth can say to defend this apostate. It is undeniable proof that he is not a Catholic.

Heresy is a rejection of a dogma of Catholic Faith. Protestantism is the rejection of many dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Protestantism is not only heresy, but the most notorious and destructive collection of heresies with which the Church ever had to contend. Protestantism rejects many dogmatic Councils of the Catholic Church, as well as dogmatic definitions on the priesthood, justification, the papacy, papal infallibility, the sacraments, Our Lady, etc., just to name a few. Protestantism is heresy in every single one of those areas. But Benedict XVI tells us that Protestants are not heretics and that Protestantism is not heresy. Incredible! This means that one can reject all the Councils and dogmas of the Catholic Church and it is not even heresy. This proves that Benedict XVI is without any doubt is a complete heretic and not the Pope. Those who deny this are simply liars.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”

Those who defend Benedict in light of this heresy quoted in the text should not dare to act like they oppose Protestantism. No, you defend the man that defends Protestantism, who excuses it, who justifies it, and does so insidiously under the guise of Catholic authority. You mock all the Saints who suffered at the hands of Protestants and all the Catholics who suffered for their opposition to Protestantism.

A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

It is a proven fact that Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is a non-Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI, is a non-Catholic whose election was utterly null and void.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”



St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)



The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

(This article may be quoted, spread and copied but the author’s name or our website: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com must be given. Copyright, Most Holy Family Monastery, 2005.)

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

As expected, neither FooT nor the persons responsible for the notorious website from which the copy and paste post was extracted, seem to know the difference between formal and material heresy.

Protestantism, as its name suggests, was born as a “Protest” and a rejection of Catholicism, and is heretical. Objectively, this is true and will always be true, and the Pope does not have the power to change this objective fact (and he hasn't).

Historically, the original Protestant promoters of heresy and schism, and those who followed them out of the Church, were labeled heretics and schismatics. However, and to the point being made by Cardinal Ratzinger, moral culpability may render the current practitioners of Protestantism, “whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy”, only material heretical, since the Church has made a prudential (practical) judgment that the heretical characteristic of pertinacity that defines the obstinate characteristic of the heretic “who persists in his own private way”, is presumed absent for the reasons given by the Pope.

In fact, the Church also recognizes, for example, that during the great schism following the rebellion of Henry XIII, whole provinces went from Catholicism to Anglicanism overnight, and that some Catholics of that time may not have realized the grave implications of such a schismatic breech with Rome. Only our Lord can judge the heart, while the Church deals in objective reality (while taking prudential positions in response to the subjective conditions of the separated members).

When in one age and for many years thereafter the Church confirms the objective heresy and schism of a given sect, and the objective heresy and schism of its members; this does not mean that every member of that sect is in fact guilty (culpable) of heresy and/or schism. And, should the Church at a later date remove the subjective stigma of heresy and schism from the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant sects, she is not only NOT denying the objective reality of the existing schism, neither is she saying that certain members of these separated brethren are NOT or cannot be culpable for heresy and schism.

The problem with the radical sede Feeneyites is that they have determined on their own private authority that any Orthodox or Protestant who is presented with one of the dogmas of our faith and does not accept it, is, by that very fact presumed culpable (obstinate in their heresy) and immediately deemed a heretic and schismatic.

Not only did St. Augustine reject this Pharisaical interpretation of Church doctrine and practice, so has tradition and the Church.

More psychobabble from our resident straw-man artist who believes that Protestants, Orthodox, and all non-Catholics lack human free will and/or that the Holy Spirit is just "not up to the job" of making the Revelation of Jesus Christ known to those who are sincerely seeking Him.

To say that a Protestant or Orthodox cannot be guilty or heresy and/or schism is to say that an American citizen cannot be guilty of treason. However, to determine that takes a trial, doesn't it? And, isn't that what the Inquisitions were about? They were courts whose job it was to determine if a baptized individual was guilty of denying a revealed dogma from the One and Triune God. Are you claiming that Saint Augustine said that it was impossible or even difficult for the Church to determine if a baptized individual was guilty of heresy and/or schism? If so, then you need to read more of what Saint Augustine said.

However, Vatican II repudiated that, didn't it? I posted this before, but you did not answer it:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. (Dignitatis humanae, 2)

This is manifestly heretical. Individuals do not have the right to religious freedom, especially, those individuals who were Baptized during their infancy. As they have a Judge in Heaven, so, too, they have judges on earth, who can try, convict, and condemn them, to death, if necessary, for the sin and crime of heresy:

Condemned Proposition: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. (Exsurge Domine, 33).

Jehanne wrote:More psychobabble from our resident straw-man artist who believes that Protestants, Orthodox, and all non-Catholics lack human free will and/or that the Holy Spirit is just "not up to the job" of making the Revelation of Jesus Christ known to those who are sincerely seeking Him.

And this from the sedevacantist "Third Order M.I.C.M" who has vowed to remain in communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

The Orthodox and Protestant have indeed accepted the divinely revealed truth of our Lord and the essential truths of His Incarnation and Redemption. Neither are we speaking about the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who may in fact choose to reveal the full body of truth to someone on his deathbed (and unknown to us). No one suggested that anyone sincerely seeking the truth lacks free will just because it (the truth) is not immediately revealed or understood. What a silly notion.

And of course, right on cue, you reject the doctrine of Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance; the extent of which only our Lord knows -- and it is not ours to determine.

Jehanne wrote:
To say that a Protestant or Orthodox cannot be guilty or heresy and/or schism is to say that an American citizen cannot be guilty of treason.

And with that, there is no reason to go on refuting your nonsense because I clearly said just the opposite. You are the one debating a straw-man.

Have fun debating your delusions.

As I told you before, I am not a sede in that I believe that the man sitting on the Throne of Peter can correct the errors of Vatican II and the many modern errors of the Church. So, keep painting me with that brush, if you will. I am still a T.O., M.I.C.M, so they haven't kicked me out of that group, not yet at least.

No one is denying that Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., are in possession of some divinely revealed truths; after all, they and we agree that 2+2 = 4 and that "Love thy neighbor as thy self" is a good thing. Question is, "Are they in possession of salvific truths?" What is heresy, exactly (the word means choice, in Latin)? According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law it is defined as thus:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So, what truths do Orthodox and Protestants deny? Well, lots of them! Now, if the above canon is representative of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, then the denial of some truth of the Catholic faith is sufficient to make one a heretic, and the vast majority of Orthodox and Protestants deny at least one dogma of the Catholic Faith; if you don't believe that, just ask one! As our Lord said, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matthew 12:37), so, too, Orthodox and Protestants, by their own free wills, are heretics in virtue of what they, by their own free wills, profess to believe.

As for Pope Pius IX, he stated the following:

"It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin." (Quanto conficiamur moerore)

Of course, we know that the One and Triune God is a Perfect Being, which means that He can never lie, ever, which means that He would never, by His "divine light and grace" ever lead someone who was seeking Him into a false religion, which means that whomever is sincerely seeking Him will find Him in the One True Church and the One True Faith, which is Roman Catholicism.

My inclination towards you MRyan is that I do not regard you as a true Catholic. I believe you lack foundational faith in Jesus Christ. Allow me to put it this way, if Benedict XVI came out tomorrow and stated Catholic doctrine on Our Lords true presence in the Holy Eucharist was false, that it was just bread that we received at Mass, you would still regard him as a Catholic and thus a true pope, you would not condemn him as a heretic whom after just pronouncing those words incurred an automatic excommunication from the Holy Catholic Church. The reason being is that you worship Benedict XVI. You regard a man to be the head of the Holy Catholic Church, who doesn’t even believe the historical accuracy of St. Matthews Gospel; who embraces countless heresies; who praises the missions of Jews; who takes active part in Jewish worship; believes in salvation outside the Church; teaches that the “Orthodox” are part of the Church and on and on and on. This man is not a Catholic thus why one must conclude he is not a pope. Since you defend Benedict XVI to the core in light of these issues I have to tell you that you lack conviction in the necessity of Jesus Christ and in the necessity of his faith and that’s why you are not able to see clearly on any of these points; on anything really. When a person sees the evidence of what BXVI and JP2s has done i.e. their false ecumenism and their heresy’s, a person should be immediately repulsed by them, if you are not; you are not really of Christ. It might take some time in looking over the arguments to work out the details of loss of office etc. but if you are not immediately repulsed by their deeds and actions, their embracing of things that are contrary to the Gospel, you are just not of Christ, it’s that simple. If a person is not convinced that Benedict XVI is not for Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church when you see him praising Judaism, what else do you need to see?

MRyan I believe you and most people today so lack supernatural faith and you are so persuaded by externals that it is frightening. The fact that BXVI can pretend to be conservative or say some conservative things while he is in full flight with his apostasy or the fact that he can come out with a new translation of the protestant invalid Novus Ordo service, that’s all you need to see and you will except him no matter what else he says, no matter how many utterances of heresy he makes, no matter how many dogmas he denies, you don’t care, it’s quite unbelievable. As long as you and all false conservatives see Benedict XVI in Rome, in the Vatican pretending to be the pope, you will except him no matter what because it’s your purely natural view of the Church, you do not believe the Church is governed by and operating under supernatural principles that are not seen, i.e. ipso facto excommunication etc.

But let us bang the nail in the coffin and let MRyan show his true colors (although in is aforementioned post he already has) so that all can see what kind of a man we are actually dealing with, with MRyan:

MRyan, what are your views on outside the Church there is no salvation?

What do you believe on the eternal fate of Muslims, Jews, and Protestants?

Do you believe that protestants are heretics and outside the Church?

Do you believe that people who reject Jesus Christ are lost?

Stand by; we will soon see a compromised, deluded, perversion of the truth.

I for one do not understand this ongoing debate. In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI released again as it has been through the centuries that there is only One True Church. It was all over the news for days how the Pope had set back the chance for reconciliation.


Newspaper Quote / 2007 :



[quote]To the dismay of ecumenically-minded Protestants, the Roman pope, Benedict XVI, made it clear, in a document released in 2007, that the Roman Catholic institution is the “one, true Church”, and that Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches.
[quote]


The article goes to in detail to reaffirm by the Pope that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Fatima for our times wrote:My inclination towards you MRyan is that I do not regard you as a true Catholic. I believe you lack foundational faith in Jesus Christ.
...

But let us bang the nail in the coffin and let MRyan show his true colors (although in is aforementioned post he already has) so that all can see what kind of a man we are actually dealing with, with MRyan

I believe the owner of this forum has been far too gracious in granting you a platform where you can post ad nauseum your favorite copy and past propaganda from your favorite sede enclave, of which you are obviously an honorary sycophant.

You already walked away when I asked if you were ready to engage me directly where we would hash out one alleged "heresy" at a time. You declined because, as you freely admit, you are not up to the task.

So please don't pretend that there's anything behind this false bravado of yours, you can only copy and paste, and you wouldn't last 10 minutes.

I owe you nothing, least of all a profession and explanation of my Faith.

But you do have one thing right, you and I are not part of the same Church (mine has a Pope), and we do not share the same Faith. I could have told you that a long time ago.

You might get an "oh look at the devastation" empathy from others, you won't get it from me. Anathema sit to your noxious heresy and your abominable schism.

They should have a "rescue" program for cultists who are fixated to a certain sede website ... you'd be a prime candidate for re-programming.

Really, FooT, stop drinking the Kool-Aid and come back to Holy Mother Church. You're little cult ain't it.

http://aquinasetc.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/it-is-not-novel-to-call-protestants-separated-brethren/

It is not novel to call Protestants separated brethren

2010/06/27 at 15:57 (Protestantism)

"Daniel-Rops writes that St. Peter Canisius “was perhaps the first to employ the term ‘separated brethren’ instead of ‘erring brethren’” (Our Brothers in Christ, 389).

It is practically an article of faith among some Protestants today [and Feeneyites] that Catholics have to refer to them as heretics rather than, as Daniel-Rops, our brothers in Christ. For whatever reasons they do not understand what Catholics mean by anathemas, nor the distinction between material and formal heresy, and consequently when Vatican II speaks of them as separated brethren (Unitatis Redintegratio) they are inclined to view this description as evidence that the Church has “gone liberal” or as mere propaganda.

[With certain Feeneyites, "they are inclined to view this description as evidence that the Church has 'gone [heretical]', or as mere 'conciliar' propaganda."]

A few pages later, he writes of another interesting event.

On one occasion Pope Pius IX received in audience an English Catholic priest who, since 1832, had undertaken a campaign of prayer for the conversion of the Anglicans; the Pope was somewhat surprised when, in defiance of protocol, the priest addressed him first, and entreated him to remove the term ‘heretic’ from official texts when referring to Anglicans and other separated brethren. This was done, all Roman documents thenceforth using the term ‘acatholici’ (non-Catholics) (p. 392).

If Daniel-Rops is correct (and I have no reason to suppose that he is not) then the Catholic Church stopped referring to Protestants as heretics around 1851 (when the priest in question, Fr. Ignatius Spencer, made his visit to Rome).

Daniel-Rops shows us that it is no new thing for Catholics to describe Protestants in this way; St. Peter Canisius did it in the sixteenth century, and the Church stopped referring to them as heretics in the nineteenth."

[END]

Imagine that.

MRyan wrote:As expected, neither FooT nor the persons responsible for the notorious website from which the copy and paste post was extracted, seem to know the difference between formal and material heresy.

Protestantism, as its name suggests, was born as a “Protest” and a rejection of Catholicism, and is heretical. Objectively, this is true and will always be true, and the Pope does not have the power to change this objective fact (and he hasn't).

Historically, the original Protestant promoters of heresy and schism, and those who followed them out of the Church, were labeled heretics and schismatics. However, and to the point being made by Cardinal Ratzinger, moral culpability may render the current practitioners of Protestantism, “whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy”, only material heretical, since the Church has made a prudential (practical) judgment that the heretical characteristic of pertinacity that defines the obstinate characteristic of the heretic “who persists in his own private way”, is presumed absent for the reasons given by the Pope.

But, is Cardinal Ratzinger making that point vis a vis material heresy? It gets somewhat convoluted since he switches back and forth from talking about "Protestantism" to "individual protestants;" and then "Protestantism" gets subdivided into "today's Protestantism" etc. But perhaps we can discuss this. I highlighted here what I see as contradictions. (Cyan from your quote goes with the cyan from the Cardinal's; orange with orange, etc.)

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

DeSelby,

Excellent points.

I think it applies to both, for the Protestantism of today cannot be said to be the same Protestantism founded by Luther and Calvin, and I think most Protestants would agree. Certainly there has been significant “developments of doctrine” on their part, just as some of our own doctrines have been open to further development and a deeper understanding. There have been a lot of theological distinctions ironed out and debated since those 39 thesis were nailed to the Church door; and, while the central “Protest” tenants of Protestantism remain objectively heretical, there has also been some progress in recognizing the good-faith efforts on both sides in restoring the breech so that full communion may eventually be restored.

The Church is taking the practical approach not only by recognizing the Catholic Baptismal connection (and means of grace) and the shared elements of Catholic Faith, but by suggesting that we will not restore the scandalous schism by hurling anathemas and calling Protestants (and the Orthodox) “heretics and schismatic”.

There is nothing “heretical” in this, even if we would prefer that the Church would place a little more emphasis on the “necessity” of return and the inherent danger of remaining apart from full communion with their Father’s House.

Pope Pius XII said it beautifully in Mystic Corporis Christi, and the only thing that has changed, I believe, is the stepped-up sense of urgency of our conciliar Pontiffs in restoring full communion to our separated brethren.

And in this, they are bound to tick some people off, and mistakes will be (and have been) made; but so what, it comes with the territory.

Pope Benedict XVI asks everyong to quiet down, take time for reflection


Published: Tuesday, January 24, 2012By The Associated Press



VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI is asking everyone to quiet down.

In his annual communications message released Tuesday, Benedict extolled the sounds of silence.

He said silence makes people better listeners and better communicators, because they have more time to think about what they’re saying. And he says that in a world inundated by Tweets and 24-hour news coverage, that precious time to think gives words greater value.

Benedict has in recent years used his annual social communications message to comment on social media, urging priests to blog and Catholics who evangelize on Facebook and other social networks to be respectful.

This year, his attention turned to the need to tune out the information overload to allow time for reflection.

George Brenner wrote:
I for one do not understand this ongoing debate. In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI released again as it has been through the centuries that there is only One True Church. It was all over the news for days how the Pope had set back the chance for reconciliation.


Newspaper Quote / 2007 :



To the dismay of ecumenically-minded Protestants, the Roman pope, Benedict XVI, made it clear, in a document released in 2007, that the Roman Catholic institution is the “one, true Church”, and that Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches.

George, just because it was reported all over the news for days that Benedict XVI might have stated that “Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches” does not mean that is what he truly believes, heretics always contradict themselves.

Like I have shown in my previous thread which we were discussing a few days back, Benedict XVI repeats his belief that the papacy denying schismatic “Orthodox” are part of the Church:

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

This is an extremely significant heresy. Benedict XVI boldly states what he and the Vatican II sect have taught many times in many different ways: that the Eastern Schismatics are part of the Church, even though they reject the papal office. He says that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are true particular churches, i.e., true local churches within the one true Church, even though they reject the primacy of the pope. This heretical teaching denies dozens of magisterial statements, the dogmatic teaching of the Church, the understanding of the papacy since the beginning, the understanding of Church unity since the beginning, and the specific definitions of Vatican I. It’s quite important because it undercuts and destroys any appeal that defenders of Benedict XVI can make to Vatican I or the Papacy. Benedict XVI denies all of Catholic teaching on the Papacy with this heresy – a heresy he has taught numerous times.

George Brenner wrote:

The article goes to in detail to reaffirm by the Pope that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Really George, does Benedict XVI really believe that?



Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”


No he doesn’t, as I said, heretics always contradict themselves. The above is a rejection of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Benedict XVI says that there is “undoubtedly” salvation outside the Catholic Faith on a “large scale,” while the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that there is undoubtedly no salvation outside the Church. He also directly contradicts Hebrews 11:6 by telling us that people can please God without the Catholic Faith.


Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin: “…our Catholic faith, ‘without which it is impossible to please God’ [Heb. 11:6]…” (Denz. 787)


Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”


Also George, if Benedict XVI is going to say Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches, then why does he teach that the Protestant s’ invalid Eucharist is a saving Eucharist?



Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 248: “Besides, I reckon as one of the important results of ecumenical conversations particularly the realization that the question of the Eucharist cannot be restricted to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology along the lines of the concept of [apostolic] succession, as is in force in the Catholic and in the Orthodox Church, should in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelical Lord’s Supper.”

So then, Benedict XVI says that even if one accepts the Catholic dogma of apostolic succession – and therefore that the Evangelical Protestants don’t have the Eucharistic presence of the Lord since they don’t have valid priests – one should in NO WAY DENY THE SAVING PRESENCE OF THE LORD IN THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT “LORD’S SUPPER.” This is heresy! This means that it doesn’t matter if one receives the Lord truly or not; you are saved either way. The Protestant “Eucharist” is a saving Eucharist! The actual Real Presence of the Lord in Catholicism is meaningless, according to Benedict XVI.

John 6:54- “Amen, amen I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

It is a proven fact that Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is a non-Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI, is a non-Catholic whose election was utterly null and void.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

(This article may be quoted, spread and copied but the author’s name or our website: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com must be given. Copyright, Most Holy Family Monastery, 2005.)

Please find below an earlier quote from DeSelby which has been posted before on this Forum:

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

This in my opinion is a perfect example of Why there is a Crisis in the Church. I have had many friends over the years who were and are protestants. My primary goal with them in love and Charity was and is to convert them. I consider them my Christian Brethren and we do share many common truths which help in the discussion for them to convert to the One and only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is NO Salvation. Some have converted even though conversion is a word you hardly hear anymore. And NO, time has not changed the feelings, support and love some of them have for Luther who was and eternally is a heretic. The urgency of the Church to muddy the waters with Charity at times gone wild and to reunite our Christian Brethren has led to mass confusion which will be restored. I think that the " Phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined" will be determined with restoration and clarity so as to remove the current crisis. And if not the Church will greatly loose the Faith and be restored by Jesus himself. We are on the brink my friends.

Sorry George, I cannot agree with that assessment. You clearly have a problem with the Pope who, it would appear, doesn’t’ seem to realize that “time has not changed the feelings, support and love some of them [Protestants] have for Luther who was and eternally is a heretic”, going so far as to suggest the Church is guilty of a “charity gone wild”. You also use (then) Cardinal Ratzinger’s defense of the Church’s stance with respect to Protestants as a prime example for “Why there is a Crisis in the Church”.

But you, like the sede’s who go a step further and call his words “heresy”, can’t seem to digest what he is actually saying, to wit:

The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic.

In other words, Luther was “once rightly condemned” as a heretic and his “heresy cannot later simply become true”. BUT, “it [Protestantism] can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic.”

Honestly, I don’t know why you seem to have such a problem with this.

The formula for convincing our separated brethren to return to full communion is a simple one, and as a great saint once said, sometimes words might even be necessary.

Fr. George Rutler, in his book “A Crisis of Saints” (p.96), said it like this:

For any pope, prudence is the exercise of a private virtue; doctrine belongs to the grace of state. But if an individual takes another route and thinks his doctrine is more Catholic’s that the pope’s, he will not be so bold as the modernist [and rad-trad] to say the pope is wrong; he may use the style of the old Byzantine courtiers and say the pope has bad advisors. And so sets in that most contradictory of moral postures; a tendency to patronize the Holy Father. The condescension is like that of the baroque preacher who was giving a mission in a Roman church; he got so impassioned about the importance of baptizing infants as soon as possible that he publicly regretted the poor example Christ had set by delaying his own baptism for thirty years.

Indeed, and rad-trads can get so impassioned about the importance of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that they "publicly regret the poor example the [pope] had set" by his fatherly approach (Luke 15: 11-32) to today’s Protestant’s, his, and the Church's, prodigal sons.

George Brenner wrote:

I consider them my Christian Brethren and we do share many common truths which help in the discussion for them to convert to the One and only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is NO Salvation.

George, in charity, there is no such thing as a non-Catholic Christian. It is impossible for a Protestant to please God since they are truly heretics and do not have the faith, and if they die without the true Catholic faith they will perish forever. Like I have shown above:

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin: “…our Catholic faith, ‘without which it is impossible to please God’ [Heb. 11:6]…” (Denz. 787)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

But you are in line with the theology of the man that claims to be the pope:

Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”

He doesn’t want the Protestant religions dissolved and converted to Catholicism, but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confession of Protestantism.

The obvious reason then; he believes them to be true Christians:

Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood: … the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy.

George Brenner wrote:

And NO, time has not changed the feelings, support and love some of them have for Luther who was and eternally is a heretic.

It is interesting that you and Mryan state that Luther was and eternally is a heretic when the leader of your sect believes Luther’s position on the Church of the Fathers is correct:

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 141: “In many respects, a decision about the role of the Fathers seems, in fact, to have been reached today. But, since it is more unfavorable than favorable to a greater reliance upon them, it does nothing to lead us out of our present aporia. For, in the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of the Fathers, Luther’s historical insight is clearly proving itself right.”

This is heresy. He says that Luther’s insight about fidelity to the Church of the Fathers is proving itself right! What is this insight? Well, on the page just before (p. 140), he quotes passages from Luther in which Luther denigrated the Church Fathers:

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 140: “By contrast, Luther’s attitude to the Fathers, including Augustine, was always more critical… It will suffice to quote one typical text: ‘…I myself wasted and lost much time on Gregory, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen… they all followed their own conceit…’”

So, one page after quoting Luther’s attacks on the Fathers, Ratzinger says that Luther’s position in this regard is proving itself right.

Joseph Ratzinger also praises the “greatness” of Luther’s “spiritual fervor”

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: “It is, consequently, all the more regrettable, I think, that the debate about office that is being carried on in the Church today relies, to a large extent, on the early Luther (this is by no means a thought that is expressed here for the first time) without recognizing the religious center that was most important to him: the call to forgiveness. That which in Luther makes all else bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor, that which orders it to a Christian center – precisely that is being ignored.”

Ratzinger praises the “greatness” of the “spiritual fervor” of arguably the worst heretic and enemy of the Catholic Church in history – a man who launched vicious attacks against Catholic dogma, the Papacy and even Our Lord’s purity of soul.

Again, the man who claims to be the head of the Holy Catholic Church praises Martin Luther, the man whom stated the following:

Dr. Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes, vol. 12. Page 215: “About a pamphlet which appeared in March 1545 by Luther which was titled “Against the Papacy in Rome founded by the devil.”

Martin Luther’s thoughts on the Pope: …the chief ruler of the Church is here spoken of with weary some iteration as “the most all hellish father, his hellishness installed juggler, the ass pope with long asses ears, desperate nave, the destroyer of Christianity, Satan’s bodily dwelling place, the devil’s apostle, the author and master of all sin, Roman hermaphrodite, and pope of sodomites.”

Those were the titles that Luther gave to the Pope at the time, Pope Paul III.

Martin Luther also stated that people should extirpate “the devil founded papacy.” Luther also said: “first of all, take from the pope Rome and all that he has as a pope. For he has with lies and tricks, ah what I say, lies and tricks, he has with blasphemies and idolatry, shamefully filched robed and robed from the empire and trampled them under foot and therefore he has led to their reward in the eternal fire of Hell, countless souls through his idolatry and destroyed Christ’s Kingdom. Wherefore he is called an abomination of desolation, therefor aught he, the pope himself, the cardinals and all the rabble of his idolatry and papal holiness to be taken, and his blasphemers have their tongues torn out from the backs of their necks and nailed in rows on the gallows, just as they attach their seals in rows to their bulls. Yet, what a trifle is this compared to their blasphemy and idolatry. Therefore let them hold one council or as many as they please on the gallows in Hell deep below all devils.”

The overwhelming majority of Protestants believe that the Bible teaches that people are justified (put into a state in which they will be saved) by faith alone in Jesus – i.e., apart from a consideration of their actions, deeds or sins. Most of them also believe in “once saved always saved” or eternal security: that a man who believes in Jesus cannot lose his eternal salvation. These ideas are false and completely contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

James 2:24- “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Galatians 5:19-21- “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-11- “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Matthew 10:22- “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

Check out www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com for the full scope.

Fatima for our times wrote:
But let us bang the nail in the coffin and let MRyan show his true colors (although in is aforementioned post he already has) so that all can see what kind of a man we are actually dealing with, with MRyan:

MRyan, what are your views on outside the Church there is no salvation?

There is no salvation outside the Church.

What do you believe on the eternal fate of Muslims, Jews, and Protestants?

Muslims, Jews and Protestants, but also [pagans], heretics and schismatics, unless before death they are joined with Her [the Church – the Mystical Body of Christ] cannot have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Do you believe that protestants are heretics and outside the Church?

Being validly baptized, they are born by grace into the Mystical Body (and receive the habit or virtue of Faith), and are not lost unless they fall into, and remain in obstinate heresy and in culpable schism from the Church. So not all Protestants are formal heretics, and we may consider them (today), as the Magisterium teaches, only material heretical (error in good-faith) until proven otherwise. They are outside the ecclesial Body, but may be joined internally to her by the very grace and good faith that comes from, and never apart from, the Church.

Do you believe that people who reject Jesus Christ are lost?

Certainly, if they are obstinate (culpable before God) for their rejection; for “… they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." [Vatican II LG 14]

However, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

Stand by; we will soon see a compromised, deluded, perversion of the truth.

So says the heretic and schismatic.

Fatima for our times wrote:

George Brenner wrote:
Newspaper Quote / 2007 :

To the dismay of ecumenically-minded Protestants, the Roman pope, Benedict XVI, made it clear, in a document released in 2007, that the Roman Catholic institution is the “one, true Church”, and that Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches.

George, just because it was reported all over the news for days that Benedict XVI might have stated that “Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches” does not mean that is what he truly believes, heretics always contradict themselves.

The only heretic here is Foot.

Fatima for our times wrote:Like I have shown in my previous thread which we were discussing a few days back, Benedict XVI repeats his belief that the papacy denying schismatic “Orthodox” are part of the Church:

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

This is an extremely significant heresy.

It is so sad to see such a gross perversion of the truth and such an appalling theology where simple distinctions are glossed over as if they do not exist.

What is Pope Benedict XVI saying? He is saying "that the Eastern [Orthodox] Churches are genuine particular churches" by virtue of their having valid apostolic succession and valid Sacraments (which is why the Protestants do not have genuine particular churches, and nowhere has any of our popes ever suggested that they do, contrary to the lies of Foot).

However, being a genuine particular church does not mean they are in communion with the Pope, and Pope BXVI confirms that the Orthodox churches are NOT in communion with him (or the Church). All he is saying is that what is constitutive for making a church "particular" (i.e., a Church with valid apostolic succession and Sacraments) does not necessitate maintaining communion with the Pope.

And nowhere does Pope Benedict XVI say that the Eastern Orthodox particular churches are "part" of the Catholic Church in the sense that they enjoy visible communion with the Pope and thus, visible unity with the Church. They do not, as he makes abundantly clear.

This is actually quite simple, and entirely orthodox; but see how FooT and the "smarter-that-the-Church" heretics butcher this fundamental teaching with their appalling private interpretation of the Church's dogmas.

They should be horse-whipped for their public ignorance and arrogance.

Fatima for our times wrote:
Benedict XVI ... says that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are true particular churches, i.e., true local churches within the one true Church

Liar ... show us where the pope, any pope, ever said that "true particular churches" such as the Eastern Orthodox churches, are "true local churches within the one true Church".

OK, time for you to extract your foot from your mouth, it should be quite entertaining.

I told you you wouldn't last 10 minutes. That took five minutes and already your entire scandalous accusation against the Holy Father and the Church went up in heretical flames.

You need to calm yourself a bit there, “big man,” go outside, have a little walk to yourself and let off some steam; you're fogging up the windows. Stop drinking the tap water, they have put way too much fluoride into it, it can brain damage a person if they drink too much of it, and stop already with your false, deluded, perversion of the truth, it only makes you look bad.

By the way, what does FooT mean? It's kinda funny, I'm actually getting a good kick out of it!

Here’s an important and interesting look at the shocking and outrageous statements of Martin Luther, the first Protestant. It covers his interaction with the Devil. It also examines the formation of the many non-Catholic, so-called "Christian" denominations, all of which were created by men and ultimately came from Luther:

I am actually with MRYAN on this one. The question of the Eastern Churches is a complicated one.

Have a look at what Orestes Brownson (a "Feeneyite" before people even called those who believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Feeneyites) said about the Russian Orthodox Church in the introduction to the book entitled, Life of Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin, prince and priest [microboth] (1873)
http://www.archive.org/details/MN5160ucmf_3 which was written by his daughter Sarah Brownson:


When I speak of heresies that crept into the Russian
Church, I must not be understood to mean that these heresies,
borrowed from Protestantism, ever found admission into the
official teaching of the Russian Church. They were entertained
not by the Church, but by individual churchmen. As
a church the Russian Church claims to be and always to have
been orthodox, and since the reunion of the East and the
West in the Council of Florence already referred to, I am
aware of no official act.of the supreme Ecclesiastical authority
pronouncing it, as a church, either heretical or schismatical,
consequently the sin of heresy or schism does not, unless I
am in error, attach to the communion, but solely to the
individuals who personally and voluntarily make.themselves
heretics or schismatics. In this respect there is a marked
difference between the Russian Church, and the several
Protestant Churches so-called, and which are simply establishments
and no Churches at all. In the case of these the sect
or establishment is under anathema; with the Russian Church,
the communion, as far as I am aware, is not under anathema,
IX
but only the individuals in that communion, as elsewhere,
who make themselves guilty of heresy and schism, by refusing
due obedience to the supreme authority of the Catholic
Church.
The points of difference between the Russians and ourselves
are the supremacy of the Pope and the Procession of the Holy
Ghost. As to the first point, I know not what change in their
attitude the recent definition of the Council of the Vatican
may have effected, but previously their attitude was less that
of denial of the papal supremacy than that of wilful refusal
to submit to it. They admit the authority of the Greek
Fathers from the first, prior to Photius, as fully as we do,
and the supremacy of the Pope by divine authority is plainly
taught in them, and was so admitted by their prelates at the
Council of Florence, which asserts the supremacy of the Pope
in language as clear, as positive as it is possible to use, both
in teaching and governing the universal Church, and by
undeniable implication his infallibility, otherwise he might
by divine authority lead the whole Church into error, which
cannotbe admitted, for God can neither teach error nor authorize
any one to teach it. To me the Orientals have seemed always
to persist in the act of disobedience rather than in the denial
of the authority itself or their obligation to obey it.



If the Eastern Churches were not true particular Churches they would have not have been able to just come into communion with Rome under agreements such as the Union of Brest.

RashaLampa wrote:
If the Eastern Churches were not true particular Churches they would have not have been able to just come into communion with Rome under agreements such as the Union of Brest.

Precisely. Great Brownson citation.

Fatima for our times wrote:You need to calm yourself a bit there, “big man,” go outside, have a little walk to yourself and let off some steam; you're fogging up the windows. Stop drinking the tap water, they have put way too much fluoride into it, it can brain damage a person if they drink too much of it, and stop already with your false, deluded, perversion of the truth, it only makes you look bad.

By the way, what does FooT mean? It's kinda funny, I'm actually getting a good kick out of it!

Foot stands for "Fatima of our times". It fits ... close enough, and changing "for" to "of" does not change the essential sense and signification of the form.

But you are as much of a "Fatima" for our times as the Holy See will become the seat of the anti-Christ.

Anyway, I have no need to take a walk, you need to answer my post and entertain us by attempting to remove foot from mouth. I've called you out ... what are you waiting for? Do you have to check-in with the mother ship? Will there be another copy and paste job?

When you enter this forum and post these scurrilous and disgusting accusations against the Holy Father and the Mystical Body of Christ, you insult every single faithful Catholic on this forum who has not swallowed your heretical swill.

I am not going to sit on my hands -- you're going to get it with both barrels.

Get used to it.

Faith is something that cannot be negotiated per the Pope.

God Bless Our Pope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uMRZ0eVejw

Mryan wrote:

Foot stands for "Fatima of our times". It fits ... close enough, and changing "for" to "of" does not change the essential sense and signification of the form.

You’re changing “for” to “of” does indeed change the essential sense and signification of the form. Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima accrued in the twentieth century; we are living in the twenty first century, hence, “Fatima for our times,” hence, Our Lady’s messages are for our times especially, for we are living through the punishment today foretold by Our Lady in the third secret, hence, of the times is not their times but our times, the twenty first century, hence, “Fatima for our times” and “Fatima of our times” (FooT as you say) express two different meanings.

On this forum I call myself “Fatima for our times” not “Fatima of our times,” (FooT as you call me) so again, you prove my words to be true by always giving a false, deluded, perversion of the truth.

Mryan wrote:

But you are as much of a "Fatima" for our times as the Holy See will become the seat of the anti-Christ.

Really, your little straw hut doesn’t line up. Catholic prophecy and the New Testament paint a picture of the last days as a massive spiritual deception aimed to deceive those who intend to practice the true faith (the Catholic Faith), and which leaves the Earth with almost no one maintaining the true faith.

The prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

In the Gospel, Jesus Christ not only informs us that in the last days the true faith would hardly be found on the Earth, but that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24). St. Paul says that the man of sin will sit “in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4). The Apocalypse describes in detail the Whore of Babylon, a false bride (i.e. a Counter Church) which arises in the last days in the city of seven hills (Rome) and which spreads spiritual fornication all over the Earth.

Mryan Wrote:

Anyway, I have no need to take a walk, you need to answer my post and entertain us by attempting to remove foot from mouth. I've called you out ... what are you waiting for? Do you have to check-in with the mother ship? Will there be another copy and paste job?

No matter what I show you, you will mangle it, twist it and turn it upside down with your false version of what you think Benedict is saying, because you are not of the truth and because you worship Benedict XVI. The bottom line, weather you want to believe it or not, is: 1. Benedict XVI teaches that Schismatic and/or heretical churches are part of the Church of Christ. 2. It is possible to be part of the Church of Christ without being subject to the Roman Pontiff. 3. In every valid celebration of the Eucharist, even by schismatics, the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church becomes present. 4. The Holy Ghost uses schismatic and/or heretical sects as means of salvation. But you will never come out of the fantasy world you live in accept that, because, like I said, you’re not of the truth.

MRyan wrote:

When you enter this forum and post these scurrilous and disgusting accusations against the Holy Father and the Mystical Body of Christ, you insult every single faithful Catholic on this forum who has not swallowed your heretical swill.

I am not posting scurrilous and disgusting accusations against the Holy Father and the Mystical Body of Christ; I am the one defending the Church, not you. Never in a million years would I do such a thing, I’d rather be hung, drawn, and quartered. You insult me and all True Catholics with that accusation. By you defending him and portraying him to be a True Catholic, you are the one that is guilty of what you accuse me of, in the process; you mock all the Martyrs that were tortured and killed for the True Catholic Faith. Your abominable defense mechanism of his attacks on Our Lord and His Church will soon be brought to light in the valley of Josaphat.

MRyan wrote:

I am not going to sit on my hands -- you're going to get it with both barrels.

Dirty, rusty, clean useless, barrels filled with emptiness that spills out poisonous gas that may kill the body, but will never kill the soul of a true Catholic who believes, and with the grace of God, always will believe in every article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents to be believed. Not like you, who is an unbeliever; who lie’s when he says the he believes in no salvation outside the Church. You had better send your two empty poisonous gas barrels away to be recycled. Your little straw hut doesn’t have a twig to stand on against the side of a brick house - the infallible teachings of the Holy Cathol Church.

Rasha,

since the reunion of the East and the
West in the Council of Florence already referred to, I am
aware of no official act.of the supreme Ecclesiastical authority
pronouncing it, as a church, either heretical or schismatical,
consequently the sin of heresy or schism does not, unless I
am in error, attach to the communion, but solely to the
individuals who personally and voluntarily make.themselves
heretics or schismatics.

Yes, Rasha, a wonderful quote.

I believe it can be also applied to those who attend sede chapels (such as the SSPV or St. Gertrude's or whatever) or those who are SSPX, etc. I think one must make the assumption that they are not heretics of schismatics until it can be proven otherwise. I am aware of no Ecclesiastical pronouncement that says that a Catholic who rejects changes to the Latin Rite of the Mass (the NO) and who rejects, for example, any claim that, since the promulgation of the Gospel, their are souls in Heaven who were not "Catholic" or baptized before death or did not explicitly believe in Christ before death is individually a heretic or schismatic.

This being the case, why could not one with a pure conscience and in good faith associate oneself with a sede or SSPX or a Feeneyite group or chapel out of motives that are Catholic and do not make one a schismatic or heretic? The issues being what they are, for my part I also question why a Trad would not.

If one must not associate with such a group because one is aware of leaders or people within the group who reject Catholic doctrine or principles (different from making a factual application of those very principles or making a decision that says "no" to a current pope or ecclesial authority on the basis of those principles), what does that say about Brownson's Orthodox, who surely must be aware of brethren who reject papal claims of primacy?

Mind you, I'm not saying do these things and call the pope a heretic, or advocating that. I do not think the Orthodox Brownson refers to who are not heretics or schismatics do that.

If one comes to the conclusion that certain actions of the "authority" are wrong, what does or may one do in accordance with conscience and remain Catholic?

This is the main issue. In light of everything, I think all of us must say "no" to some of these things, even if only humbly and and silently, voting with our feet. Say no -not merely disagree and go along. It seems to me that the "obedience" or "one must follow the authority" position has done more damage to the faith than the other extreme.

There's a great debate between Father Cekada and Father Jenkins which on the surface concerns whether one sede priest (who rejects the Thuc line) must give communion to a lay sede from another chapel (of the Thuc line) that I think touches on these issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrS5GGonhdw

Anyway, it's a good debate showing some deep Catholic minds at work on an issue.

Fatima for Our times wrote:

Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima accrued in the twentieth century; we are living in the twenty first century, hence, “Fatima for our times,” hence, Our Lady’s messages are for our times especially, for we are living through the punishment today foretold by Our Lady in the third secret

Yes Fatima for Our Times , you are correct

The last several Popes knew the last secret of Fatima and as Mother Angelica said "We did not get the whole thing" or in my words the Real Thing. This is a punishment for all of us and not only the Pope. Knowing the third secret the Last several Popes have tried with intense charity and love to bring those outside the faith to become united to the Catholic Church.
The intense love and charity has caused intense confusion in the beautiful simplicity of Christ's message. Our Pope chose the name Benedict for a reason. Lately the warnings from Him on the perilous times we are now in are issued weekly. It is a race against time. We are on the brink and I believe the Angels have been given their marching orders. Where you and I disagree is that I am sure that Pope Benedict has not lost the faith and is surrounded with enemies at all levels who are wolves in sheep clothing. Pope Benedict needs our love and prayers in this battle. No, I can not not explain all of the actions and words spoken by our recent Popes, that will be for Holy Mother Church and God to determine. Our Pope suffers much and it hurts when I hear the likes of the Dimonds who possess great knowledge but empty hearts attack Him. We must help the Pope from within the Church right the true ark of salvation.




Fatima for Our Times further said:

I am not posting scurrilous and disgusting accusations against the Holy Father and the Mystical Body of Christ; I am the one defending the Church, not you. Never in a million years would I do such a thing, I’d rather be hung, drawn, and quartered. You insult me and all True Catholics with that accusation. By you defending him and portraying him to be a True Catholic, you are the one that is guilty of what you accuse me of, in the process; you mock all the Martyrs that were tortured and killed for the True Catholic Faith. Your abominable defense mechanism of his attacks on Our Lord and His Church will soon be brought to light in the valley of Josaphat

Fatima for Our Times, I believe that you do love your Catholic Faith very much but that your pain and hurt is so deep that you abandon Our Pope in this great time of Crisis. You mention the great Martyrs who died for the articles of Faith and doctrine but they did not abandon their Pope. Father Michael Rodriquez would never abandon the Pope. Mother Theresa, Padre Pio did not abandon their Pope nor should you. Sedevacanist can not sit on the the sidelines and say if the Pope comes around that I am back in. You should suffer pray for the Pope all the clergy and each other from within the Church. Sadly we are right now at the brink of this Crisis going one way or the other very very soon. The status quo is about to shift directions. Are you ready to meet Jesus yourself without showing Our Pope small fraction of the love that Jesus has for You and our Pope.

JMJ,

Your friend,

George

Prayer composed by Pope Leo XIII and ordered to be said during Benediction:

O blessed Virgin Mary,
Mother of God and our most gentle Queen and Mother,
look down in mercy upon England thy "Dowry"
and upon us all who greatly hope and trust in thee.
By thee it was that Jesus our Saviour and our hope was given unto the world;
and He has given thee to us that we might hope still more.
Plead for us thy children,
whom thou didst receive and accept at the foot of the Cross, O sorrowful Mother.
Intercede for our separated brethren,
that with us in the one true fold
they may be united to the supreme Shepherd,
the Vicar of thy Son.
Pray for us all, dear Mother,
that by faith fruitful in good works
we may all deserve to see and praise God,
together with thee, in our heavenly home.

Amen.

Quote from George

The last several Popes knew the last secret of Fatima and as Mother Angelica said "We did not get the whole thing" or in my words the Real Thing. This is a punishment for all of us and not only the Pope.

George, if we indeed did not get the whole thing and the Pope told us (at the time) that we DID get the whole thing and, as the Pope was privy to the full message, we must coclude (if Mother Angelica is correct) that the Pope lied to the whole Church.
No?

Prayer composed by Pope Leo XIII and ordered to be said during Benediction:

O blessed Virgin Mary,
Mother of God and our most gentle Queen and Mother,
look down in mercy upon England thy "Dowry"
and upon us all who greatly hope and trust in thee.
By thee it was that Jesus our Saviour and our hope was given unto the world;
and He has given thee to us that we might hope still more.
Plead for us thy children,
whom thou didst receive and accept at the foot of the Cross, O sorrowful Mother.
Intercede for our separated brethren,
that with us in the one true fold
they may be united to the supreme Shepherd,
the Vicar of thy Son.
Pray for us all, dear Mother,
that by faith fruitful in good works
we may all deserve to see and praise God,
together with thee, in our heavenly home.

Amen.

A beautiful prayer composed by Pope Leo XII. I obey the Pope with this prayer by also praying for our separated brethren and along with them, all sinners. What separates them from the Holy Catholic Church? They are separated by the sin of heresy and schism.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Leo XIII: “To reject dogma is simply to deny Christianity.” (Tametsi futura # 9, Nov. 1, 1900)

Columba wrote:

George, if we indeed did not get the whole thing and the Pope told us (at the time) that we DID get the whole thing and, as the Pope was privy to the full message, we must coclude (if Mother Angelica is correct) that the Pope lied to the whole Church.
No?

Great point Columba. The Vatican’s version has no mention of apostasy in the Church:

THIRD PART OF THE “SECRET” (According to the Vatican):

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.

The following two statements seem to contradict the above:

Fr. Mario Luigi Ciappi, the papal theologian to Pope Pius XII, stated: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

Another cardinal of the Vatican II Church incredibly admitted that the Third Secret deals with the post-Vatican II apostasy.

Cardinal Silvio Oddi:“… the Third Secret [of Fatima]… is not about a supposed conversion of Russia…. but regards the ‘revolution’ in the Catholic Church.”

I agree with you "Fatima for our Times." One can only wonder how "Pope" Benedict knows that there are a lots of individuals who are saved "outside" the One and True Church? The quote from Pope Gregory XVI was great; it shows the clear transition in Catholic teaching. It is clear that he was really the last true traditional Pope, although, Saint Pope Pius X certainly did his best to mitigate the ambiguities of Pope Pius IX. I have read that many observers were surprised by his election to the Throne, as he was known as a "liberal" by some in the Church at the time.

The whole notion of "invincible ignorance" is silly. Not only does it contradict Tradition, it contradicts all logic and reason. As I have posted before, I can go into any ER, courtroom, school, etc., and convince anyone there, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I exist. Are individuals such as Mike ("MRyan") claiming that the One and Triune God is "incapable" of doing that? Or, are they saying that "non-Catholic Christians" are just not worthy in God's eyes of His Sacraments and His Most Blessed Body, true Sacraments that are only found in His Catholic Church?

As I have posted before, God is a Perfect Being, therefore, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He would never, by His "divine light and grace," lead someone into a false religion and/or allow such a person to remain in one, if that individual were truly seeking Him. To claim otherwise would be to deny His Perfection and/or His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience in leading those who sincerely are seeking Him to His One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

Jehanne wrote:

The whole notion of "invincible ignorance" is silly. Not only does it contradict Tradition, it contradicts all logic and reason. As I have posted before, I can go into any ER, courtroom, school, etc., and convince anyone there, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I exist. Are individuals such as Mike ("MRyan") claiming that the One and Triune God is "incapable" of doing that? Or, are they saying that "non-Catholic Christians" are just not worthy in God's eyes of His Sacraments and His Most Blessed Body, true Sacraments that are only found in His Catholic Church?

As I have posted before, God is a Perfect Being, therefore, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He would never, by His "divine light and grace," lead someone into a false religion and/or allow such a person to remain in one, if that individual were truly seeking Him. To claim otherwise would be to deny His Perfection and/or His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience in leading those who sincerely are seeking Him to His One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

Exactly Jehanne, Br. Peter Dimond in the following video explains a perfect example of that:

Nice video, although, it is sad that the Spaniards had him put to death. If his conversion to Catholicism was, indeed, sincere, then he would have been no threat to Spain; if anything, he would have been an asset.

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/search/label/Sedevacantism



"God's miracle confirming the holiness and pontificate of Pope John XXIII was five to ten years before the Sedevacantist and Sedeprivationist movements began.

The miracle of Sister Caterina is a continuous miracle: she still has no spleen and no pancreas; her stomach is the size of a prune. Since 26 May, 1966, Sister Caterina Capitani lives a 'super human' life of hospital work.

In the matter of the papacy the onmiscient God provided a living affirmation that the true Church continues through the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII. The Church may not be the way we may think it should be; but it is the Church. The Popes may not be the way we think that they should be either; but they are the Popes. And after Pope Pius XII there came Blessed John XXIII. If we doubt this we should meditate on the miracle of Sister Caterina Capitani. But if we deny the miracle we would be like those of old, of whom Our Lord said: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. (John X, 25)"

Columba and Fatima for Our times,

If we all get started on the Third Secret of Fatima it will take on multitude of postings with supporting evidence on both sides of the question. Do we know exactly what was the third secret of Fatima. My personal opinion is that it does tell about the suffering in the Church in the last half century or so and the Crisis of Faith that we are in today and more importantly , the Holy Fathers urgency the last few months.

Pope Benedict XVI (in Italian): “Oltre questa grande visione della sofferenza del Papa, che possiamo in sostanza riferire a Giovanni Paolo II sono indicate realtà del futuro della Chiesa che man mano si sviluppano e si mostrano. Cioè è vero che oltre il momento indicato nella visione, si parla, si vede la necessità di una passione della Chiesa, che naturalmente si riflette nella persona del Papa, ma il Papa sta nella Chiesa e quindi sono sofferenze della Chiesa che si annunciano.” [Quote taken from an Italian article by Gian Guido Vecchi. ]

Now for the word-for-word, literal English translation of the Italian words, but only of those bolded above:

Pope Benedict XVI (in English): “Beyond this great vision of the suffering of the pope...That is, it is true that beyond the moment indicated in the vision, it is spoken (or “it is said”), it is shown [or “it is seen”] the necessity of the passion of the Church...and therefore are the sufferings of the Church that is announced.” (Incidentally, I realize the last sentence is awkward, but what I am providing is a literal translation. The last sentence better reads in English as follows: “...and therefore are the sufferings of the Church announced” OR “...and therefore it is the sufferings of the Church that are announced.")

2010, May 11: Pope Benedict XVI, on his pilgrimage to Portugal in May, stunned the press and
the Catholic world by saying that the Third Secret of Fatima tells us that “not only from the
outside come the attacks against the Pope and the Church, but the sufferings of the Church come
from right inside the Church, from the sin that resides inside the Church... we see this today
really in a terrifying way: the greatest persecution against the Church doesn’t come from its
enemies outside, but starts from the sins within the Church

MRyan wrote:In the matter of the papacy the onmiscient God provided a living affirmation that the true Church continues through the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII. The Church may not be the way we may think it should be; but it is the Church. The Popes may not be the way we think that they should be either; but they are the Popes. And after Pope Pius XII there came Blessed John XXIII. If we doubt this we should meditate on the miracle of Sister Caterina Capitani. But if we deny the miracle we would be like those of old, of whom Our Lord said: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. (John X, 25)"

Sure, this was a Pope (John XXIII) who reaffirmed Father Feeney's Bread of Life as being wholly orthodox:

http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html

Fact is that Pope John XIII never signed a single document of Vatican II, and according to some, cried on his deathbed, "Stop the Council, stop the Council..."

Okay, so what's your point? That we accept everything that the recent "Popes" have said? Such an idea is absurd, because as I have pointed out to you before, they contradict themselves. One need only compare the first & second "editions" of the CCC. But, you will say, "The second is more authoritative!" No doubt such is true, which, by the way, is true of virtually all "second editions" of any work. However, does that mean that the first edition of the CCC was without any authority? Hardly.

So, considering some of the changes from the first to second editions, it is clear that the Magisterium itself is struggling with what it does and does not believe. Remember that "retraction" (Father Brian Harrision's words) with JP II, where he deleted the phrase "with the Lord" with respect to aborted children? What a retraction! How could such a "Pope," after nearly 2,000 years of unbroken teaching even imply that children who die without Baptism are, to a moral certitude, in Paradise??? It's worse than Supreme Court Justice Roberts not being able to give President Obama the correct Oath of Office. Clearly, JP II did not know what he believed and did not believe.

The list can go and on... Question is, "What do you want from us?" Are you claiming that the CCC is without error? Or, that Vatican II taught without error? Do you think that the present "Pope" agrees with that position? If so, why the Doctrinal Preamble with the SSPX, which basically (according to confirmed reports by those who have read it) gives the Society the right to dissent from Vatican II? Why would Pope Benedict XVI (note the "missing quotes") agree to such a document if he thought that Vatican II was "without error"?

Jehanne wrote:

The whole notion of "invincible ignorance" is silly. Not only does it contradict Tradition, it contradicts all logic and reason. As I have posted before, I can go into any ER, courtroom, school, etc., and convince anyone there, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I exist. Are individuals such as Mike ("MRyan") claiming that the One and Triune God is "incapable" of doing that? Or, are they saying that "non-Catholic Christians" are just not worthy in God's eyes of His Sacraments and His Most Blessed Body, true Sacraments that are only found in His Catholic Church?

As I have posted before, God is a Perfect Being, therefore, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He would never, by His "divine light and grace," lead someone into a false religion and/or allow such a person to remain in one, if that individual were truly seeking Him. To claim otherwise would be to deny His Perfection and/or His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience in leading those who sincerely are seeking Him to His One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

Exactly Jehanne, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas would agree also:

St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”

As we see, St. Alphonsus is clearly making reference to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas below, in which he denies that any soul who is ignorant of the Gospel can be saved. Rather, if there is a person who is completely ignorant of the faith but who is of good will, God will make sure that he comes to a knowledge of the faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”

This point really shows the dishonesty of modern people today, who like to quote St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire to somehow justify their heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved by “baptism of desire.”

Thank you for the citations in this thread; I have added them to my blog.

"Fatima for our times",

Please respond to my responses below beginning with "What is Pope Benedict XVI saying? He is saying 'that the Eastern [Orthodox] Churches are genuine particular churches' ... "

I am going to prove that you do not know what you are talking about, and that your scurrilous accusations against the Holy Father are false.

Let's see if you can stay on topic; and let's see what you've got. You made the brazen accusations, now you're going to have back-up your words, or, in all justice, recant.

Fatima for our times wrote:

George Brenner wrote:
Newspaper Quote / 2007:

To the dismay of ecumenically-minded Protestants, the Roman pope, Benedict XVI, made it clear, in a document released in 2007, that the Roman Catholic institution is the “one, true Church”, and that Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches.

George, just because it was reported all over the news for days that Benedict XVI might have stated that “Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches” does not mean that is what he truly believes, heretics always contradict themselves.

And every schismatic, without fail, fabricates heresies to justify his schism against the Roman Pontiff. The only heretic [being contradicted] is Foot.

Fatima for our times wrote:Like I have shown in my previous thread which we were discussing a few days back, Benedict XVI repeats his belief that the papacy denying schismatic “Orthodox” are part of the Church:

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

This is an extremely significant heresy.

It is so sad to see such a gross perversion of the truth and such an appalling theology where simple distinctions are glossed over as if they do not exist.

What is Pope Benedict XVI saying? He is saying "that the Eastern [Orthodox] Churches are genuine particular churches" by virtue of their having valid apostolic succession and valid Sacraments (which is why the Protestants do not have genuine particular churches, and nowhere has any of our popes ever suggested that they do, contrary to the lies of Foot).

However, being a genuine particular church does not mean they are in communion with the Pope, and Pope BXVI confirms that the Orthodox churches are NOT in communion with him (or the Church). All he is saying is that what is constitutive for making a church "particular" (i.e., a Church with valid apostolic succession and Sacraments) does not necessitate maintaining communion with the Pope.

And nowhere does Pope Benedict XVI say that the Eastern Orthodox particular churches are "part" of the Catholic Church in the sense that they enjoy visible communion with the Pope and thus, visible unity with the Church. They do not, as he makes abundantly clear.

This is actually quite simple, and entirely orthodox; but see how FooT and the "smarter-that-the-Church" heretics butcher this fundamental teaching with their appalling private interpretation of the Church's dogmas.

Fatima for our times wrote:
Benedict XVI ... says that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are true particular churches, i.e., true local churches within the one true Church

This is a blatant lie ... show us where the pope, any pope, ever said that "true particular churches" such as the Eastern Orthodox churches, are "true local churches within the one true Church".

Produce the proof, or recant.

Mryan wrote:

Please respond to my responses below beginning with "What is Pope Benedict XVI saying? He is saying 'that the Eastern [Orthodox] Churches are genuine particular churches' ... "

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

Ratzinger is definitely saying that the Eastern Churches are true particular churches within the universal Church. He uses the words “particular church” to mean as is defined in the new code of canon law, as a true local segment or a diocese of the universal Church. It’s contrary to Catholic teaching to say that a local Church which is led by a bishop who is a heretic who rejects the papacy is a true local Church inside the Church of Christ. To say Benedict XVI does not believe, preach, and teach that the schismatic “Orthodox” are part of the true Church of Christ is to lie, just like you do. He manifests his belief in this by calling the schismatic leaders “pastors in the Church of Christ” and “your holiness” etc.

The following quote will prove to anyone of goodwill Benedict XVI believes that the schismatic “Orthodox” are part of the True Church of Christ:

“To His Holiness

BARTHOLOMEW I

Archbishop of Constantinople

Ecumenical Patriarch

‘May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing’ (Romans 15:13). In the communion of the faith that we have received from the Apostles and in the brotherly charity that binds us, I wholeheartedly join in the solemn celebration at which you are presiding, Your Holiness, on the Feast of the Apostle and Martyr, St Andrew, the brother of Peter and the holy protector of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to wish Your Holiness, the members of the Holy Synod, the clergy and all the faithful an abundance of heavenly gifts and divine Blessings. My prayers, like those of all Catholic brothers and sisters, accompany yours in order to invoke God our Father, who loves his Church and built her on the foundations of the Apostles, for peace throughout the world, the prosperity of the Church… I treasure in my heart the still very vivid memory of our last meeting when we went together as pilgrims of peace to the town of Assisi, to reflect on the profound relationship that combines the sincere quest for God and the truth, and that of peace and justice in the world. I thank the Lord who has permitted me to strengthen with you, Your Holiness, the ties of sincere friendship and authentic brotherhood that bind us, and to bear witness to the whole world the broad vision that we share, with regard to the responsibilities to which we are called as Christians and Pastors of the flock that God has entrusted to us… In the face of such an urgent task, it is our duty to offer to humanity in its entirety the image of people who have acquired maturity in faith who can join forces despite human tensions, thanks to their common search for the truth, in the awareness that the future of evangelization depends on the witness of unity borne by the Church… It is a very great comfort to me to note likewise, that Your Holiness, since you were called to the ministry as Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch, 20 years ago, has always had at heart the matter of the witness borne by the Church and of her holiness in today’s world… With these sentiments of faith, hope and charity, I repeat to you, Your Holiness, my most fervent good wishes and exchange with you a fraternal greeting in Christ Our Lord.”

Here we see Benedict XVI’s message to the schismatic “Orthodox” patriarch Bartholomew I. He repeatedly calls the leader of this non-Catholic church “His Holiness.” He states that St. Andrew, a Catholic and a saint of the Catholic Church, gives heavenly protection to the schismatic church. Benedict XVI states that he and the schismatic leader bear witness to the whole world as leaders of the true Church. Benedict XVI then declares the schismatic a “Pastor of the flock God has entrusted to us.” This is to say that the schismatic is a true pastor of the one true church and that God put him in that position! Benedict XVI says that the schismatic was called by God to lead a schismatic church 20 years ago: “you were called to the ministry as Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch.” Once again, Benedict XVI provides proof for those who seek the truth on this issue that he is not a True Catholic and thus not a True Pope.

Benedict XVI’s December 16, 2011 Address to Delegation of “religious” and civil authorities of Ukraine. This delegation included members of the country’s “orthodox” church lead by “Archbishop” Phillip of Poltava and Myrhorod: “I address a special thought to the distinguished representatives of the Orthodox Church, with the Archbishop of Poltava and Myrhorod, expressing my sincere appreciation of their meaningful presence.”

Once again, when speaking about another schismatic “orthodox” bishop, he declares the schismatic bishop to be an “archbishop.” To declare someone an archbishop means you believe he is a jurisdictional bishop of the one true church.

A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

It is a proven fact that Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is a non-Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI, is a non-Catholic whose election was utterly null and void.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

(This article may be quoted, spread and copied but the author’s name or our website: www.vaticancatholic.com or www.mhfm1.com must be given. Copyright, Most Holy Family Monastery, 2005-2011.)

Mryan will admit this:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

Is a denial if this?

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

And that Benedict XVI is guilty of this:

Pope Leo XIII: “To reject dogma is simply to deny Christianity.” (Tametsi futura # 9, Nov. 1, 1900)

And thus the conclusion leads to this:

A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

It is a proven fact that Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is a non-Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI, is a non-Catholic whose election was utterly null and void.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

That's right, I forgot; no salvation outside the Church actually means there is salvation outside the Church. What was I thinking?

See the following where the new code of canon law defines “particular church” as a local church or a diocese of the Universal Church; therefore there is no doubt that when Benedict XVI teaches that the schismatic “orthodox” are “true particular churches” he is teaching that churches and bishops who reject Vatican I and the papacy are true local segments of the Universal Church:

PARTICULAR CHURCHES AND THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN THEM (Cann. 368)

CHAPTER I.

PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Can. 368 Particular churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists, are first of all dioceses, to which, unless it is otherwise evident, are likened a territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration erected in a stable manner.

A document entitled Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church was issued by the Vatican II sect’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 2007, approved by Benedict XVI. See how Benedict XVI is just repeating what this document, Vatican II and Dominus Iesus teach, that the schismatic “orthodox” are “true particular churches.”


BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH, “RESPONSES…”:

FOURTH QUESTION

Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”, they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.

“Responses” here addresses the issue of the schismatic Eastern churches, such as the “Orthodox.” It affirms that they are “true particular churches.” Again, a true particular church means a diocese of the true Church. The Diocese of Philadelphia, for instance, would be a true particular church. This passage, therefore, constitutes a bold statement that schismatic sects are parts of the true Church. People cannot underestimate how heretical this is. Think about it; allow it to sink in. It means that you can join your local “Orthodox” church and be part of the true Church. It is to trash the dogma upon which the Church was built (Mt. 16), which has been repeated by pope after pope: namely, that the Papacy is the principle of unity in the Church and that if you refuse communion with the pope or the Papacy you are outside the Church. Below are just some quotes from popes reaffirming this dogma:

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith? Does he who deserts and resists the chair of Peter, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15): “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself…”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943: “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can only be one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope Pius VII, Diu Satis (# 15), May 15, 1800: “So the sheep of Christ should consider safe and eat cheerfully the food to which Peter’s voice and authority directs them; but despite any beauty and charm, they should shun as harmful and plague-ridden, what this voice forbids them. Those who do not comply are certainly not to be counted among the sheep of Christ.”

Pope St. Leo the Great: “It is necessary that the Church throughout the whole world be united and cleave to the center of ecclesiastical communion, so that whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “Just as he who does not gather with Christ, so he who does not gather with Christ’s vicar on earth, clearly scatters. How can someone who destroys the holy authority of the Vicar of Christ and who infringes on his rights gather with him?”

“Responses” then states that the Eucharist, which is celebrated and received by these schismatics, helps the Church to grow. Such an idea rejects the traditional Catholic teaching that he who receives the Eucharist outside the Church sins mortally and is headed for damnation.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.”

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

Finally, in the passage of “Responses” cited above, it mentions that the “universality” or catholicity of the Church isn’t fully realized in history because of the existence of these other “Churches.” This is heretical on two fronts: 1) It denies that the Church fully possesses one of her marks (i.e. she’s “Catholic”), and 2) this ridiculous idea stems from a heretical understanding of what happens when heretics leave the Church. When heretics and schismatics become heretics or schismatics they don’t break the Church apart, since the Church is indivisible by nature; they simply depart from the Catholic Church, leaving her universality unharmed and the oneness of the remaining members intact.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4), June 29, 1896: "The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature…"

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5): " … This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts."

Fatima for our times wrote:

Mryan wrote:

Please respond to my responses below beginning with "What is Pope Benedict XVI saying? He is saying 'that the Eastern [Orthodox] Churches are genuine particular churches' ... "

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

Ratzinger is definitely saying that the Eastern Churches are true particular churches within the universal Church. He uses the words “particular church” to mean as is defined in the new code of canon law, as a true local segment or a diocese of the universal Church. It’s contrary to Catholic teaching to say that a local Church which is led by a bishop who is a heretic who rejects the papacy is a true local Church inside the Church of Christ. To say Benedict XVI does not believe, preach, and teach that the schismatic “Orthodox” are part of the true Church of Christ is to lie, just like you do. He manifests his belief in this by calling the schismatic leaders “pastors in the Church of Christ” and “your holiness” etc.

You simply repeat the lie and then continue with a mendacious conflation of terms and with the destruction (due to ignorance) of critical distinctions.

Nowhere does Pope Benedict XVI say that the Eastern Churches are true particular churches within the universal Church. Nowhere; and in fact he clearly and repeatedly rejects this notion (and heresy). In in fact, "To say Benedict XVI does not believe, preach, and teach that the ... 'Orthodox' are part of the true Church of Christ is to lie", is not a lie, it is the truth. The "lie" is to equate "part of" with "within" and "inside".

Before going further, I asked you to stay on topic so that we can expose one falsehood (of yours) at a time, but here you are with your incessant copy and past jobs from your favorite notorious sede website that serve as a distraction to the subject at hand. I’ll refute (and have refuted) each and every one of these errors in good time, but I will insist that we stay on topic before moving on to a different subject.

Your problem, Foot, is that you do not seem to know the difference between being “within” the true Church of Christ and in some essential way being a “part” of the true Church that allows for the existence of the Orthodox Churches in the first place, through valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Without being a “part” of the Catholic Church (albeit, imperfectly), these constitutive elements would not and could not exist.

Now, do the Eastern Orthodox Churches possess a valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments? The answer is yes, and this is not open to debate; and I will assume that even you agree with that.

Since they are in valid possession of these constitutive elements of the one true Church of Christ, there must be, by logical necessity, a bond of a unity that exists between the single Church of Christ and these particular separated Churches that “is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church”.

Will you deny that a child born into the Greek Orthodx Church, for example, who professes the faith that is handed down through his parents, and who participates in the Sacraments, can be in a state of grace?

You will not deny this, unless you wish to break with your sede masters who affirm this truth. In fact they also affirm that this same Greek Orthodox child will not commit an act of formal heresy until at some unknown point in his life he obstinately rejects (with full knowledge) an article of Catholic faith.

So tell me, Foot, from whence originates the grace of faith and the grace of the Sacraments that this child professes and receives -- from the Greek Orthodox Church? No; these graces only pass through the valid ministers and instruments of the Greek Orthodox Church, for they derive their validity and efficacy exclusively from the one true Church of Christ.

But how can these graces flow thorough the Greek Orthodox Church if it is not in some way a part of the One true Church of Christ?

Before I demolish your “to be a part of means to be within” logical fallacy (to include your misreading of canon law), please answer the question.

That was a mistake in my part which I own up to and admit; I shouldn’t have used the word “within” for nowhere that I am aware of does Ratzinger use the word “within”, he uses the word “in”; he also teaches that they are part of the universal Church which is equivalent to the same but not necessarily. It was an accident, forgive me.

MRyan wrote:

Nowhere does Pope Benedict XVI say that the Eastern Churches are true particular churches within the universal Church. Nowhere; and in fact he clearly and repeatedly rejects this notion (and heresy). In in fact, "To say Benedict XVI does not believe, preach, and teach that the ... 'Orthodox' are part of the true Church of Christ is to lie", is not a lie, it is the truth. The "lie" is to equate "part of" with "within" and "inside".

Mryan to knock you flat on your back once again and refute your pitiful arguments once and for all, I will show you where Benedict XVI repeats his heretical belief that the schismatic “orthodox” leader is in the Church of Christ. Pay attention!

During his 2006 trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI went into two schismatic cathedrals and met with three schismatic patriarchs, including the leader of the world’s schismatics: Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. Benedict XVI not only committed a forbidden action of communication in sacred things with the schismatic, but he may have committed his worst heresy in his joint declaration with him.

Benedict XVI, Joint Declaration with Schismatic Patriarch Bartholomew, Nov. 30, 2006: “This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God's work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord's will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ… As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches.”

Did you get that? Is that clear enough for you? He says: “… our responsibility as pastors IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST”! What could be more heretical than: declaring in a joint declaration with the leader of the world’s schismatics that the schismatic leader, who rejects the Papacy and Papal Infallibility, is “in the Church of Christ”?

Benedict XVI made this formally heretical declaration in a schismatic cathedral as part of a joint declaration during a divine liturgy with a notorious schismatic! Thus, its official: Benedict XVI has declared in a public joint declaration that one can reject the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, etc. and be in the Church of Christ. He is without any doubt a public heretic.

Benedict XVI made a host of other statements to the schismatic in his homilies and in the joint declaration which are totally heretical, such as praising the lifting of the excommunications against them.

He also teaches that they belong to the Catholic Church:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 229, Letter to the Schismatic Metropolitan: “I have become still more clearly aware that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church belong to one another and that none of the doctrinal questions that appear to divide us is insoluble.”

He says that a schismatic, non-Catholic sect belongs to the Catholic Church!

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896 – Bishops Separated from Peter and his Successors Lose All Jurisdiction: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone… No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

MRyan wrote:

Nowhere does Pope Benedict XVI say that the Eastern Churches are true particular churches within the universal Church. Nowhere; and in fact he clearly and repeatedly rejects this notion (and heresy).

After reading the above statement by Ratzinger, where he states clearly that the schismatic “orthodox” leader is a pastor in the Church of Christ, will you speak the truth for a change and just admit he is a public heretic? If you answer me with truth, I will answer whatever questions you have for me. Is that fair enough?

Fatima for our times wrote:That was a mistake in my part which I own up to and admit; I shouldn’t have used the word “within” for nowhere that I am aware of does Ratzinger use the word “within”, he uses the word “in”; he also teaches that they are part of the universal Church which is equivalent to the same but not necessarily. It was an accident, forgive me.

Thank you.

But, before moving on to the question of the Pope's "ecumenical language", I was hoping that we can reach an agreement on this important matter:

from whence originates the grace of faith and the grace of the Sacraments this child professes and receives -- from the Greek Orthodox Church? No; these graces only pass through the valid ministers and instruments of the Greek Orthodox Church, for they derive their validity and efficacy exclusively from the one true Church of Christ.

But how can these graces flow thorough the Greek Orthodox Church if it is not in some way a part of the One true Church of Christ?

I'm sure you would agree that there is neither salvation nor sanctification apart from (outside) the one true Church of Christ.

So can we agree that the grace of faith and the grace of the sacraments cannot flow through the Eastern Orthodox Churches by way of their valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, without these same Churches being in some way a "part of" the one true Church of Christ?

Do we have agreement? If so, I will be happy to respond to the rest of your comments.

Mryan wrote:

But, before moving on to the question of the Pope's "ecumenical language", I was hoping that we can reach an agreement on this important matter:

“Ecumenical language” please, don’t even go there. I knew I would never get an honest response from you, I must have been dreaming.

Mryan wrote:

from whence originates the grace of faith and the grace of the Sacraments this child professes and receives -- from the Greek Orthodox Church? No; these graces only pass through the valid ministers and instruments of the Greek Orthodox Church, for they derive their validity and efficacy exclusively from the one true Church of Christ.

But how can these graces flow thorough the Greek Orthodox Church if it is not in some way a part of the One true Church of Christ?

That even a pagan can validly baptize; are you going to say that the grace of faith which this child receives at his/her baptism passes through this pagan religion?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

Also, there is no grace in the Greek “Orthodox” Church, they reject the papacy; sanctifying grace does not exist in their souls since they are primarily schismatics, secondarily heretics, and in mortal sin, thus headed for Hell unless they renounce their heresies and join the Catholic Church before the end of their lives. They are in no way part of the Holy Catholic Church; they are completely outside of and separated from Her. Why won’t you listen to the Popes when they speak, and except what they teach on the schismatic “orthodox”?

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith? Does he who deserts and resists the chair of Peter, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”

This child you mention, if validly baptized, and all baptized infants are Catholic and subject to the Roman Pontiff:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884: “The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism…”

The Catholic Church teaches that the baptized infants of heretics are actually Catholics, even though these infants are baptized by heretics in a heretical church building and are taken to the heretical church every week. This is de fide.

Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I, March 6, 1254: “Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. – But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland.” (Denz. 457)

It is de fide that all baptized infants without exception who die go straight to the “eternal fatherland” (heaven). So, infants born to heretics or schismatics and baptized by heretics or schismatics, and present in a heretical church building which contains heretics, are actually Catholics. Anyone who denies this is a heretic.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Can. 13 on Justification: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 869)

Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae (#4), Jan. 10, 1890: “…Jesus Christ laid upon His Apostles the injunction to ‘preach the Gospel to every creature,’ He imposed, it is evident, upon all men the duty of learning thoroughly and believing what they were taught. This duty is intimately bound up with the gaining of eternal salvation: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’ [Mk. 16:16] But the man who has embraced the Christian faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a subject of the Church as one of the children born out of her, and becomes a member of that greatest and holiest body, which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under its visible head, Jesus Christ.”

When do baptized infants, who are born to heretical or schismatic parents, lose subjection to the Roman Pontiff and/or the Catholic faith and thus cease to be Catholic? A baptized person who has the Catholic faith, as a baptized infant does, can only cease to be Catholic through heresy, schism or apostasy.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

So, when this child reaches the age of reason and adopts to the heretical belief of his/her parents, he/she incurs automatic excommunication from the Holy Catholic Church thus separates himself//herself from the one fold, which means they are outside of and completely apart from the Holy Catholic Church; as the Greek schismatic “orthodox” are.

Mryan wrote:

I'm sure you would agree that there is neither salvation nor sanctification apart from (outside) the one true Church of Christ.

I know that’s what you believe; I on the other hand believe, what the Catholic Church teaches; there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Mryan wrote:

So can we agree that the grace of faith and the grace of the sacraments cannot flow through the Eastern Orthodox Churches by way of their valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, without these same Churches being in some way a "part of" the one true Church of Christ?

Do we have agreement? If so, I will be happy to respond to the rest of your comments.

No, we do not have agreement for the reasons which I have states above.

Fatima for our times wrote:

Mryan wrote:
So can we agree that the grace of faith and the grace of the sacraments cannot flow through the Eastern Orthodox Churches by way of their valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, without these same Churches being in some way a "part of" the one true Church of Christ?

Do we have agreement? If so, I will be happy to respond to the rest of your comments.

No, we do not have agreement for the reasons which I have states above.

Fine, I just wanted to set the record straight before exposing your errors.

I would also like to appeal to those reading this exchange to read with care, and I hope with renewed interest, my forthcoming defense of the Church’s magisterial teaching on Particular churches, and why this same teaching with respect to the Particular churches of the Eastern Orthodox is entirely consistent with Canon Law (I may post my response in a subsequent post).

But first, I asked Foot, “how can these graces flow thorough the Greek Orthodox Church if it is not in some way a part of the One true Church of Christ?”

He replied: “That even a pagan can validly baptize; are you going to say that the grace of faith which this child receives at his/her baptism passes through this pagan religion?”

No, and we are not speaking about Baptism alone, we are speaking about all of the other Sacraments that require a valid priesthood, and thus, that require an ontological relationship with the originating source for the power of the priesthood and the validity of these same Sacraments, no matter how imperfect or illicit the relationship happens to be.

It should be evident that the essential ontological bond of the priesthood is derived from the eternal Priesthood of Christ, which in turn is transferred to the Apostles and then to the Bishops in an unbroken line of succession. Please note that apostolic succession is NOT dependent upon the Papacy, though valid Jurisdiction is.

So every priest who possesses a valid ordination receives His priesthood from Christ through one of the legitimate successors to the Apostles. That the Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession, a valid priesthood and valid sacraments cannot be denied. Though unity is imperfect, and a wound to the Body of Christ, neither can this ontological bond with the true Church of Christ be denied, as much as Foot would like to deny it.

One of the vital “proofs” of this bond, if you will, is the life of sanctifying grace that is available to the Orthodox through these same Sacraments; after all, outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. Foot would have us believe; however, that the life of grace and the remission of sins is not available to the Orthodox who have not retained the Catholic Faith of their infancy (by virtue of a valid Baptism).

While simply elegant; it is fraught with error, and smothers critical distinctions.

In transitioning from the “infant” who is baptized in the Orthodox Church and who receives the grace of habitual Faith (with the act of Faith being supplied by the Catholic Church until the infant reaches the age of reason), it would seem Foot may really be stepping on it when he speaks of this same infant who:

reaches the age of reason and adopts to the heretical belief of his/her parents, he/she incurs automatic excommunication from the Holy Catholic Church thus separates himself//herself from the one fold, which means they are outside of and completely apart from the Holy Catholic Church; as the Greek schismatic “orthodox” are.

Of course, this would be true IF, as Canon 1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stipulates:

“After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

In fact, after citing this truth, Bro. Peter Dimond writes:

“And this is a good example of how pertinacity or obstinacy is a requirement for heresy”, and “Thus, these Catholics … were not heretics unless they demonstrated obstinacy in this belief”.

Using the example of the dogma on the two wills of Christ [as with the dogma of Papal Primacy], Dimond says that an innocent error here serves as:

“an example of a dogma or a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn't have to be known positively by all in order to be saved. It can never be rejected [Me: Not with obstinacy and pertinacity], but some people could be innocently ignorant of it or confused about it until the Church's teaching is pointed out to them or explained to them, because a Catholic is not bound to have a positive knowledge of all the teachings of the Church to be a Catholic. I hope that the reader is following me so far.”

Foot, have you followed your mentor thus far?

If so, you will have to qualify or amend your statement to read:

“when this child reaches the age of reason and adopts to the heretical belief of his/her parents, he/she incurs automatic excommunication from the Holy Catholic Church thus separates himself//herself from the one fold; IF and ONLY IF the child “pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith”. In other words, “these … were not heretics unless they demonstrated obstinacy in this belief”.

It would appear that Foot is faced with a problem and a contradiction; for in order to maintain that a child who is raised in the Orthodox faith, who reaches the age of reason and professes the faith of his parents and his received Orthodox tradition (and believes in all of the essential articles of faith), but does not intentionally or obstinately reject any dogmas of the Catholic Faith (pertinacious denial or doubt), this child is still a “member” and “subject of the Roman Catholic Church".

Perhaps Foot can explain how a child raised in the Eastern Orthodox faith who has reached the age of reason and “has embraced the Christian faith” of his parents and received tradition, “is by that very fact a subject of the Church as one of the children born out of her, and becomes a member of that greatest and holiest body, which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under its visible head, Jesus Christ.” (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae (#4), Jan. 10, 1890)

Since the child is now capable of making his own act of faith, and indeed, professes the faith of his parents without being culpable for rejecting any of the secondary dogmas, does the Church still supply for his faith in those areas where the child is inculpable for his ignorance?

I’ll make this simple: Please explain how this same child/adolescent is a “member” of the Roman Catholic Church when he is neither visibly nor juridically subject to the Roman Pontiff, and does not recognize the dogmas of Papal Primacy with a Catholic understanding?

Is this “membership by implicit desire”?

I look forward to your response.

You're back to denying human free will again, Mike, and/or the Providence of the One and Triune God in bringing His Truth to each and every one of His Elect. However, let's contrast this with the SSPX? What dogmas do they/we deny? Are the SSPX schismatic? If so, why not the Orthodox? Is belief in Papal Primacy a "necessary article" of the Faith? If not, how about after we explain such to them? Are you saying that they are incapable of denying that Truth? By the way, what is the opposite of "membership by implicit desire"? Do you believe that it is possible for a confessing Catholic to be an "implicit Orthodox" by some implicit desire? Or, does implicit desire, faith, etc. only exist for "non-Catholics"? Say, for instance, that I am an "implicit Orthodox by some implicit desire"; how do I, as an act of my own conscious free will (assuming, of course, that I have free will -- do you believe in free will, by the way?) decide to become a Catholic?