|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 10, 2017 19:43:59 GMT
Two questions:
1. If Pope Francis isn't the pope, then who is?
2. Did God contradict Himself when He said that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 20:39:10 GMT
"The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Were the Arians right all along?
You can't just quote Scripture and draw your conclusions from it. "No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation", 2 Peter 1:20. Nor can you arbitrarily decide that the Church ceases to be the true Church at a certain point-- schismatics throughout history have made the same claim as you. It's intriguing that you are using the Whore of Babylon image in Revelations in the same way Protestant controversialists have used it for centuries. Telling, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 20:42:59 GMT
Also, you can't post whole tracts here and expect people to respond to them.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 20:58:20 GMT
Actually, it is interesting that you mentioned protestants because false traditionalists are one and the same, with protestants. Yup. They both set their private judgement against the Pope, the bishops and the Magisterium.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 21:02:05 GMT
Also, you can't post whole tracts here and expect people to respond to them. I am not sure what you are referring to? Is it the attention span of people in general? The whole truth is very important. Yes, you do know what I am referring to. Why do you think you are entitled to such an extensive hearing? Answer me without begging the question by claiming to be in the right.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 10, 2017 21:13:15 GMT
"The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Were the Arians right all along? You can't just quote Scripture and draw your conclusions from it. "No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation", 2 Peter 1:20. Nor can you arbitrarily decide that the Church ceases to be the true Church at a certain point-- schismatics throughout history have made the same claim as you. It's intriguing that you are using the Whore of Babylon image in Revelations in the same way Protestant controversialists have used it for centuries. Telling, perhaps? In charity, those that hold your position i.e. misinterpret, taken out of context etc, are men, who don't like the truth but rather adhere to their own ways and ideas. The conclusions are self-evident for those of good will. Isaias 65:2 I have spread forth my hands all the day to an unbelieving people, who walk in a way that is not good after their own thoughts. Jeremias 10:23 I know, O Lord, that the way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk, and to direct his steps. I am not here to fight with anyone, and I know that there are few that are saved and so it would only be natural, there will not be many who will believe the truth. What was provided was simple and easy reading and comprehension. If you disobey, you will suffer lose! 3 Kings 9:3-9 2 Paralipomenon 7:16-22 In light of the overwhelming evidence of confusion, disunity, and chaos, it amazes me how anyone would disagree with the obvious. Actually, it is interesting that you mentioned protestants because false traditionalists are one and the same, with protestants. But there has been confusion, disunity and chaos though the Church's entire history. If there wasn't there would be no need for ecumenical councils, which were convened to counter such disunity. What makes the Vatican II era any different?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 10, 2017 21:18:32 GMT
Yup. They both set their private judgement against the Pope, the bishops and the Magisterium. It seems quite clear by your own words that you don't like truth and the teachings of the catholic church.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: 1. ... Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling...
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: (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...”
I have my disagreements with Maolsheachlann, but I would never EVER say that he didn't like the truth. Notice that when referring to the Roman Pontiff that the bull says nothing about falling into heresy AFTER becoming Pope. The answer: it's impossible. Even if a declaration could be made that the Pope was a heretic, surely that would the responsibility of the Cardinals and not a group of people on the Internet without any canonical authority?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 10, 2017 21:45:32 GMT
I have my disagreements with Maolsheachlann, but I would never EVER say that he didn't like the truth. Notice that when referring to the Roman Pontiff that the bull says nothing about falling into heresy AFTER becoming Pope. The answer: it's impossible. Even if a declaration could be made that the Pope was a heretic, surely that would the responsibility of the Cardinals and not a group of people on the Internet without any canonical authority? Young Ireland, I am not trying to be mean but you have to go back to the catholic teaching that I provided when you asked me did God contradict Himself. Honestly, its only fair to read throughly through what was provided, in order to comment on the topic. I mean this sincerely.
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "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."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2),
St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
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.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Again, what authority have you to say that there has been no Pope for fifty years, never mind why God would allow such a thing to happen (not to mention how the Papacy would ever be restored in such a scenario)?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 22:05:13 GMT
Mr Truth3, you are arguing in a circle. You argue from Church documents that a manifest heretic can be removed as Pope, but you refuse to answer Young Ireland's question as to what gives you the authority to do this. If the post-Vatican II Popes were heretics, it obviously isn't "manifest" to the vast majority of people who consider themselves Catholics. What gives you the right to make this call? Your answer is to quote various passages of Scripture and give them your own reading, like any good Protestant. Well, anyone could do this. And round and round we go.
As Bernard Shaw said: "You don't have to eat a whole egg to know it's rotten".
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 23:48:30 GMT
Sorry, you can't just keep repeating the same fallacy and expect us to respond to it. Paraphrase it as often as you want, it's still the same circularity. And now...you've had enough of my time. Go into the dustbin of heretical history with the Nestorians, the Arians, the Manicheans, and all the other dreary schismatics.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 23:49:50 GMT
Oh, and your apples are rotten too.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 0:20:43 GMT
OK, well, here's a parting gift from St. Augustine:
"Not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."
from Against the Manicheans.
When people talk about the Catholic Church, they are talking about the visible and identifiable body headed by the bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Not the dozens of obscure sects which claim that title. If small numbers are the virtue you presume, well, there are plenty of obscure and tiny "true Catholic" churches to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 0:50:57 GMT
Well, the debate about the fewness of the saved is a debate in itself, since the Church has never declared anyone officially to be in Hell so have no idea how many or how few are saved. And notice that Jesus pointedly refuses to answer this question directly.
However, also notice...you are talking about the SAVED. Not the members of the Church. Big distinction there. Being a member of the Catholic Church is not the same thing as being saved, not least because anyone can fall into mortal sin before they die.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 0:52:56 GMT
And if you think I was claiming that the Church is the buildings, then you are really very bad at reading.
Also, I'm not sure why you call me a "false traditionalist". I don't claim to be any sort of traditionalist, at least not in a religious sense.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 1:12:04 GMT
Truth3, you are flailing desperately because you have been unable to answer the question of what gives you the authority to privately interpret Scripture and Tradition in such a way to excommunicate the successor of St. Peter and his brother bishops, and to disregard our Lord's promise to St. Peter.
Sarcasm, repeating the same arguments, and quoting more Scripture verses won't do it.
|
|