Indefectibility: Game Over

[Livenotonevil]

Jesus Christ meant something different from how the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, has repeatedly interpreted His words in the Gospel of Matthew  (= Protestant Private Interpretation)

This logic is, if not ridiculously contradictory, passive in it's pretending ignorance that there are no other claimants to an Apostolic Church.

If you already threw out the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church (that is, the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on Matthew 16:18), how do you then come to the conclusion that Roman Catholic Church Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit?

Especially when they designated a specific definition of Matthew 16:18, which is something that ONLY Roman Catholics believe in.

Both the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, for example, have Church Fathers which laid out in plain words a different interpretation, to which Roman Catholics raise their voices in some kind of emotional stress by some kind of "Two sides of the same coin" argument, even though Saint Augustine says in the plainest of words that the Rock is Christ, and that anybody who interprets it as Peter are fools (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm), while Thomas of Aquinas says the complete opposite.

[Miriam_M]

Jesus Christ meant something different from how the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, has repeatedly interpreted His words in the Gospel of Matthew  (= Protestant Private Interpretation)

This logic is ridiculously contradictory.

By the "logic" of an Eastern Orthodox-er, of course.


I'm not going to debate with a heretic.  Sorry. 

Yes, there are a priori principles inherent in Catholic belief.  Those a priori principles are called Faith.  What has guided the Church in her doctrine are reason and faith together. And this is a Traditional Catholic forum, not a Speculation forum or all-Christian-religions forum. 

Have a nice day.

[Livenotonevil]

Yes, there are a priori principles inherent in Catholic belief.  Those a priori principles are called Faith.  What has guided the Church in her doctrine are reason and faith together. And this is a Traditional Catholic forum, not a Speculation forum or all-Christian-religions forum.

Then you should ban the original poster, who has publicly denied the indefectability of the Roman Catholic Church. And he's the one who started this whole thing by trying to immediately discredit, without much spiritual or intellectual effort, the claims of the Orthodox Church.

And if you blaspheme the Church, I will defend her. Ban me, I don't care, but know that you act as Antichrist when you Blaspheme the Bride of Christ, and you will be judged for it, for to blaspheme the Body of Christ is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

The people who shall enter the unending ambers shall be those who are lawless,and  you are incredibly lawless, for you hold to no logic, no reason, no spiritual love, but rather you are motivated by your own fleshly attachment to a liturgy from the 19th century. You cannot even objectively define what you believe in in terms of your obedience to Pope Francis, and in order to justify your pitiful obedience to someone as blasphemous as Pope Francis, you flip flop your love and hatred towards him.

So go on, commune your Protestants and go to your Ecumenical Prayer services, while also yelling at people of different Faiths with venom on the Internet.

And I won't be so iniquitous as to show passive aggression by saying with a condescending smirk "have a nice day." I'll tell you flat out to repent of your sins, otherwise you will not be saved, and I'll pray for you.

[christulsa]

Have you really thoroughly studied what indefectability means?  Are there not depths to this doctrine that remain open questions not settled by the theologians and the Magisterium?

It is dogma that Catholic revelation and teaching is absolute.  So if you are a Catholic, if reason should indicate the Faith is false, then it is an error of rationalism, not an error of the Faith.

[Stubborn]

First, you need to start out with the Church being indefectible as your unfailing foundation, if you would do that, you would soon be faced with the reality that most of the rest of your post is full of falsities and errors.

According to you and your hero Fr. Wathen, the "indefectible" Church could promulgate and did promulgate the "Great Sacrilege" of the Novus Ordo Missae.  A defected Church?  No because, well, uh, Vatican I's Papal Infallibility wasn't at issue here.  You have no credibility on this issue.  You actually believe in a defected Church no matter how much you preach an indefectible Church as your "unfailing foundation".

Again, you have it wrong. The Church did not promulgate the Great Sacrilege, it was promulgated by the Church's enemies who are within the Church, which enemies were told us by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi. 

You are completely lost on this issue of the Church's indefectibility because starting with your premise that the Church has defected, is the complete wrong foundation

Again, you need to start out with the Church being indefectible as your unfailing foundation, if you would do that, you would soon be faced with the reality that most of the rest of your post is full of falsities and errors. Why not try starting over with the correct foundation?

[abc123]

Jesus Christ meant something different from how the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, has repeatedly interpreted His words in the Gospel of Matthew  (= Protestant Private Interpretation)

This logic is ridiculously contradictory.

By the "logic" of an Eastern Orthodox-er, of course.


I'm not going to debate with a heretic.  Sorry. 

Yes, there are a priori principles inherent in Catholic belief.  Those a priori principles are called Faith.  What has guided the Church in her doctrine are reason and faith together. And this is a Traditional Catholic forum, not a Speculation forum or all-Christian-religions forum. 

Have a nice day.

Unfortunately this has long been the position of the Roman church. If Luther's request for debate of his 95 theses would have been met with intellectual and religious vigor the Reformation may not have ever gotten off the ground. As it is Rome decided, as she always does, to simply shout down, condemn and (occasionally) burn at the stake those who get out of line. Despite popular belief, Luther's act was not one of naked defiance but was the common way in which public discussion and debate was requested at the time.

If you have the truth on your side, why not show the plain error of your opponent?

[abc123]

.

[GloriaPatri]

Jesus Christ meant something different from how the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, has repeatedly interpreted His words in the Gospel of Matthew  (= Protestant Private Interpretation)

This logic is ridiculously contradictory.

By the "logic" of an Eastern Orthodox-er, of course.


I'm not going to debate with a heretic.  Sorry. 

Yes, there are a priori principles inherent in Catholic belief.  Those a priori principles are called Faith.  What has guided the Church in her doctrine are reason and faith together. And this is a Traditional Catholic forum, not a Speculation forum or all-Christian-religions forum. 

Have a nice day.

Unfortunately this has long been the position of the Roman church. If Luther's request for debate of his 95 theses would have been met with intellectual and religious vigor the Reformation may not have ever gotten off the ground. As it is Rome decided, as she always does, to simply shout down, condemn and (occasionally) burn at the stake those who get out of line. Despite popular belief, Luther's act was not one of naked defiance but was the common way in which public discussion and debate was requested at the time.

If you have the truth on your side, why not show the plain error of your opponent?

Ultimately they are unable or unwilling to even conceive of themselves as being mistaken. All they can do is call anyone who disagrees with them a "heretic" because it makes them feel morally superior. Like the Pharisee: "The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men."

[John Lamb]

Unfortunately this has long been the position of the Roman church. If Luther's request for debate of his 95 theses would have been met with intellectual and religious vigor the Reformation may not have ever gotten off the ground. As it is Rome decided, as she always does, to simply shout down, condemn and (occasionally) burn at the stake those who get out of line. Despite popular belief, Luther's act was not one of naked defiance but was the common way in which public discussion and debate was requested at the time.

Please read about Luther's meeting with Cardinal Cajetan and retract your slander.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Have you really thoroughly studied what indefectability means?  Are there not depths to this doctrine that remain open questions not settled by the theologians and the Magisterium?

Oh, I've studied it just fine, thank you.  We're 3 pages in, and no one's actually attempted anything resembling a serious rebuttal.  Miriam put up a straw man regarding the clerical scandals, and Stubborn is trying to make an ersatz and false distinction between what the Pope does officially and what the Church does.  Conclavist was trying to argue that a band of layman can come together and elect a Pope.  That's as far as it goes as I can see.  Granted, some of these pages were arguments with livenotevil about Orthodoxy, but still.

1.  According to Pope Francis, we are obliged to hold the death penalty as, no matter what the circumstances, as an "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the human person" and as "cruel" and "inhumane".  Would anyone argue that it is not intrinsically evil to be cruel and inhumane?  But if so, it means the Church officially sanctioned a "cruel" and "inhumane" practice for centuries.  In the long essay Miriam cited, posing a different moral code was one of the hypothetical things which would constitute a defection of the Church.  Yet it's happened.

2.  According to the SSPX, of course, this type of thing has been going on for a while.  But the same question applies.  Even if the documents of Vatican II are only deliberately misleading, how can the Church even possibly attempt to mislead the faithful?

3.  Then, of course, there's sedevacantism.  But, as I've argued, and no one has seriously attempted to rebut, if the Church continues on materially as it was, but not formally as it was, this constitutes a defection, since the Church must continually exist materially as well as formally until the end of time, with no break between the two.  And that's what happened.

In response to Miriam: You haven't begun to attempt to answer any of the above.
In response to Stubborn: The Pope has supreme jurisdiction over the Church.  That means, when he officially promulgates something, it is Catholic teaching or practice.  That is Catholic doctrine.
In response to conclavist: It's too late.  It doesn't matter if laypeople could elect a Pope.  That would be starting a new Church.  The Church materially is the organization headed by Pope Francis; it has material continuity with the Church pre-Vatican II.

It is dogma that Catholic revelation and teaching is absolute.  So if you are a Catholic, if reason should indicate the Faith is false, then it is an error of rationalism, not an error of the Faith.

If reason should indicate the Faith is false, it is false.  If you deny this, faith has become irrational, the Kierkegaardian leap in the dark.

What I have said is a very strong argument an unbeliever could make.  You can't respond with, the Church is indefectible because it is.

[abc123]

Unfortunately this has long been the position of the Roman church. If Luther's request for debate of his 95 theses would have been met with intellectual and religious vigor the Reformation may not have ever gotten off the ground. As it is Rome decided, as she always does, to simply shout down, condemn and (occasionally) burn at the stake those who get out of line. Despite popular belief, Luther's act was not one of naked defiance but was the common way in which public discussion and debate was requested at the time.

Please read about Luther's meeting with Cardinal Cajetan and...

The meeting where Cardinal Cajetan was instructed not to debate Luther but to simply get him to recant? That meeting?

retract your slander.

Nah.

[John Lamb]

And if you blaspheme the Church, I will defend her. Ban me, I don't care, but know that you act as Antichrist when you Blaspheme the Bride of Christ, and you will be judged for it, for to blaspheme the Body of Christ is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

The people who shall enter the unending ambers shall be those who are lawless,and  you are incredibly lawless, for you hold to no logic, no reason, no spiritual love, but rather you are motivated by your own fleshly attachment to a liturgy from the 19th century. You cannot even objectively define what you believe in in terms of your obedience to Pope Francis, and in order to justify your pitiful obedience to someone as blasphemous as Pope Francis, you flip flop your love and hatred towards him.

You're using pompous language but you're not making much sense. Catholics are not required to debate heretics, because heretics undermine faith and it's the duty of Catholics first of all to protect their faith. Granted, it's the duty of some Catholics (i.e. trained theologians) to debate heretics, but certainly not all; and Miriam's point is correct that this is a Catholic forum, so you shouldn't pretend to be shocked and offended when you're called a heretic. It's obnoxious when a Catholic (i.e. Quare) makes a thread undermining the Catholic faith, and the Orthodox swoop in to encourage him to apostatise. But then to act offended when you're mildly rebuked for this is just over the top. Also, you make a lot of assumptions about Miriam's faith ("attachment to 19th century liturgy", "no spiritual love"). You should calm down and stop with the false humility.

[mikemac]

Quaremare,

You've missed out the fourth option - that's it's all over.

Vatican II is the revolt, and the one who holds - the Pope - has been taken out of the way.  The only condition required before the Second Coming, according to St Paul, is the appearance of the antichrist.

It's in the Creed after all. Christ will come again.  Why not now?

Wrong.  The fullness of the Gentiles has to come in before the Jews convert, so that at the name of Jesus all knees shall bend.

How about - the fullness of the Gentiles comes in on Judgement Day, when the last of the Gentiles are separated into sheep and goats?  And then the Jews convert?

Do you reject the idea that Vatican II is the revolt warned about by St Paul?

That would have to be an awful busy Judgement Day.  And the last of the Gentiles and the Jews would be converting at the 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second.  Not very likely I don't think.

Yeah Vatican II could possibly be the revolt warned about by St Paul.  But why is it taking over 50 years.  He still has to sit in the temple and show himself as if he were God too.

"[3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God."
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm

Actually I was looking for tsthtf 3 1/2 years after he was elected, but it never came. 

[John Lamb]

The meeting where Cardinal Cajetan was instructed not to debate Luther but to simply get him to recant? That meeting?

Did Cajetan debate him or not?

[GloriaPatri]

The meeting where Cardinal Cajetan was instructed not to debate Luther but to simply get him to recant? That meeting?

Did Cajetan debate him or not?

Can it really be a debate if the result of not recanting is execution for heresy?