Pope, Pope, Whose got the Papacy?

[John Lamb]

Rome on the other hand has never professed heresy.

That depends who you ask.

Some, like Vetus, will say whatever Rome says is true, making it a tautology. Sedes will say that whoever professes heresy is not representing the Roman see, making it unfalsifiable. Trads will contort whatever is said whicever way they can to give it an orthodox interpretation. R&R will say it wasn't professed in an official capacity.

I will give a more solid reason and say that Rome has never denied the truth contained in sacred scripture, sacred tradition, the church fathers, and the ecumenical councils.

[Kreuzritter]

Rome on the other hand has never professed heresy.

That depends who you ask.

Some, like Vetus, will say whatever Rome says is true, making it a tautology. Sedes will say that whoever professes heresy is not representing the Roman see, making it unfalsifiable. Trads will contort whatever is said whicever way they can to give it an orthodox interpretation. R&R will say it wasn't professed in an official capacity.

I will give a more solid reason and say that Rome has never denied the truth contained in sacred scripture, sacred tradition, the church fathers, and the ecumenical councils.

So will those in all those camps. The question is how one arrives at that conclusion int he face of the current facts, which make it look like it's Rome's turn. I can sit here and say things like "John 3:5", "Athanasian Creed", "geocentrism", "creationism", "Council of Florence", but someone will always have an ad hoc argument as to why, despite appearances, these have not actually been contradicted.

[TheReturnofLive]

Matthew 16:18
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

Christ's promise to Peter does not ensure that the Roman See will be occupied well or by good men. It just means that the Roman See will maintain its doctrinal orthodoxy and remain a pillar of faith for the universal church. And when you compare the Roman See with any other, it is miraculously orthodox. For example, the Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandira and Constantinople have been infected with Arians, Nestorians, Monothelites, and the like. Rome on the other hand has never professed heresy.

Bruh, have you ever read the 6th Ecumenical Council? Or perhaps this Pontificate?

[TheReturnofLive]

Bergoglio being an antipope is no reason to abandon the papacy than was any past antipope. That would be like renouncing Christ because you're disgusted with the Antichrist. Where's the sense in that?

You have no evidence whatsoever to sufficiently doubt that Pope Francis is an Anti-Pope. The only other Papal claimant - Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI - has repeated ad-nauseaum that he retired on his own accord and was not pressured to retire, and that Pope Francis is the only legitimate living Pope. Because there is no sufficient doubt to the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Pope, you have no logical reason to reject the only claimant to the Papacy, no logical reason to disrespectfully refer to your Holy Father as "Bergoglio," and no logical reason to reject his authority.

Even so, you as a layman have no ability to make any solemn judgments on the Pope, visa vi Vatican I.

[TheReturnofLive]

But since humans don't or won't view the complete history of the Papacy, we come out looking like fools.

Is the Papacy really that important for each and everyone of us to be Catholic? Is the Papacy of Vatican I a burden that can't or shouldn't be borne by any reasonable human being especially in the full blown apostasy of Francis elected by a conclave? Isn't Francis just more of the same and the Papacy is reverting to its norm of power hungry individuals? Fallen man once again.

400 or 500 years of good popes then the Church goes off the rails again. Was Pius IX power hungry?

Vatican I / papal infallibility is the only thing saving the Church from collapsing into outspoken Modernism. It cannot be exaggerated how much Vatican I's solemn definition of the irreformability of papal teaching has put a leash on the Modernist's attempt to dissolve all doctrinal definitions into nothing. Without that dogma every other dogma would have been denied outright by now. If you read Vatican I you'll see that it doesn't say that every pope is an impeccable saint who must be obeyed in every thing he says and does; it just says that every solemn ex cathedra definition relating to faith and morals is infallible.

On the contrary, it was the Pope who approved of Vatican II, it was the Pope who approved of the reforms of the liturgy (which involves prayers that the Jews may grow in faithfulness to their covenant and arrive at the fullness of their salvation), it was the Pope who approved of liturgical degredation via Pagan rituals integrated in the Mass, liturgical dance, and Altar-server girls, it was the Pope who kissed the Quran and prayed Saint John the Baptist to protect Islam, it was the Pope who explicitly approved the charismatic movement, and it was the Pope who organized the meeting at Assisi.

Oh, okay; so maybe the Pope hasn't been the source of unity recently, but it was a source of unity in the past.

Really?

It was the Pope who tried to excommunicate the Church of Polycrates because they didn't use the Julian Calendar, receiving the wrath of pretty much the entire Church to revoke his decision, even by Saint Vincent Lerins, because a Calendar wasn't worth a schism; it was the Pope who got directly involved into the Carthaginian debates on dealing with heretics and caused great infighting between Saint Cyprian and the Pope; it was Pope Tiberius who approved of a condemnation of Athanasius, only to repent of it; it was the Pope who forced a theology using Antiochian / Nestorian terminology upon the whole Church, causing multiple schisms in Western Europe and Byzantium, and a massive schism which lasts today (the Oriental schism), it was the Pope who approved of forcing Eastern Rite Churches by the Normans to use unleavened bread, causing the Great Schism; it was the Pope who took advantage of the Fourth Crusade to establish Latin Patriarchs throughout the Byzantine Empire, causing great hatred between the East and the West; it was the Pope who not only approved of a scandalous use of indulgences, but also approved of forbidding the Bible to be translated into different languages, which fueled the Protestant Reformation, whose consequences are like 10,000 different denominations; it was the Pope who forced every bishop through tactical and sly means to proclaim Vatican I, even directly forcing an Eastern Rite Bishop to kiss his shoe and forcing him to sign it, causing the Old Catholic schism; and it was the Pope who proclaimed Vatican II, who actually said that Gregorian Chant ought to be abandoned because group participation was better, and that the 1962 Missal should never be allowed, causing the Lefebvrist schism and small groups within Catholicism fighting against the Pope today.

Indeed, rather than being the source of unity, so many times in Church history, even from near the beginning, we have the Pope trying to force his own view, which isn't doctrinal or moral, on the Church in a quite immoral manner, and creating massive schisms and conflicts. If the Pope is such a source of unity, why is the case that a Catholic Church can have, in one parish, rock and roll, dancing, and Zen Buddhist meditations; while in another parish, it can have a priest silently mumbling to himself some Latin words that people can't hear; and how has the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox had so much more unification on matters of Liturgy, Doctrine, and Morality?

[mikemac]

Pope, Pope, Whose got the Papacy?

Definitely not the Eastern/Russian Orthodox.

[QuaeriteDominum]

Jesus said to Peter, "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not PREVAIL against it."

Of course Catholics are familiar with the Church's history and problems with various popes. The point is that we have the promise of Jesus Christ that however strongly the enemy batters against the Church, they will not PREVAIL against it.

This is true even when it APPEARS to us that all is lost.

Well said!

Snip of a sermon given by Fr. Wathen that elaborates a bit more....


"...We have reason to celebrate at all times because as you know, even though we commemorate the sorrowful event of Our Lord's Passion and death, and even though we live in a very sad situation, we realize that our sorrow is not that of complete tragedy. We might even use the expression, "The Divine Comedy", of which we are players, because everything that happens is under the Divine Control.

And even though there is much sin and there is real tragedy, the only real tragedy and the only irreparable tragedy of course being the loss of a soul. And this actually happens. But as far as creation is concerned and our part in it, we do not really recognize any tragedy because we anticipate salvation. We have no reason to disbelieve that Almighty God does not intend to save us. Not that we are not able to lose our own souls, but we recognize that we are serious about being saved. We intend to be and we have reason to rejoice that Almighty God has shown us such mercy.

Among all the mysteries that we live amongst, is that of the fact that God saves those whom He wills. And yet those who are lost are lost because they will. No one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will. At the same time almighty God has known from all eternity who would be His, whom He would succeed in saving. And all the jubilation that the Church expresses in its many Masses and in its office is over the fact that those whom God regards as His elect, will be saved.

Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have his victory, when he emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church.

It really does not matter therefore that throughout history, the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer It's terrible embarrassments, It's setbacks.

Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve, and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.

If it were not so He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that, and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place.

We have it in our power to participate or we have it in our choice to be turned away, it is strictly within our choice and whatever grace is necessary is within our grasp...."

Stubborn - thanks for bringing in Fr. Wathen's thoughts. These are great points. We can resort to hand wringing whenever Francis presents another absurdity or we can concentrate on being the most faithful Catholics that we can, saving the souls of ourselves and our families, being prepared for martyrdom, and trusting that even if we don't see a resolution in our time, Christ's promise of His church prevailing will ultimately be fulfilled.