Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum => Topic started by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 03:50:22 PM

Title: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 03:50:22 PM
The sole source of epistemological authority in Roman Catholicism is the Pope. Period, no ifs, buts, or what ifs.

We live in a situation where the Pope has made the death penalty morally inadmissible (meaning God sinned in Sodom and Gomorrah), has allowed intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics, has allowed the Chinese government to dictate the doctrine of the Chinese Catholic Church, and has allowed people living in an adulterous relationship to receive communion, in solemn, Papal decrees.

More than this are all of his private opinions about Evangelism ("Proselytism is a sin against Ecumenism"), the Eastern Rite Churches, and his promotion of pure religious indifferentism (https://christiannews.net/2016/01/09/pope-calls-for-collaboration-with-worlds-religions-those-who-meet-god-in-different-ways/), and his condemnation of prohibiting illegal immigration.

More than this is his canonization of Pope Paul VI, which officially - whether it's a legitimate canonization or infallible or even invalid - declares his entire life to be an imitation of Christ for the Catholic laity to follow


If you cannot go to the Pope or the Roman Church to find the True Faith, and what point does the gates of hell prevail against the Church? Most people will read the Formula of Pope Hormisdas to refer to the indefectability of the Roman See.

Well, how can one look at the Roman Church today and say that the Church hasn't defected? Where can one find the true Catholic Faith?

God hasn't zapped Pope Francis with lightning - we still have to eat our popcorn of death and watch Rome crumble even more than one can imagine. His reign is just starting.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 03:53:21 PM
Even if we argue that the Pope is an anti-Pope (which there is no evidence of), he has still modified the rules of the Roman Church, such that you can't go to the Roman Church to find truth.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Davis Blank - EG on December 27, 2018, 05:57:38 PM
Yawn.  Awaiting discussion of how the same magically does not apply to divorce for the Orthodox or disagreements between its churches.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 06:09:09 PM
If you want to talk Orthodox ecclesiology or divorce, open a new thread. Because I’m not here to smell red herrings.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Heinrich on December 27, 2018, 06:17:13 PM
If you want to talk Orthodox ecclesiology or divorce, open a new thread. Because I’m not here to smell red herrings.

That's what your OP is.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 06:22:28 PM
It’s a question on what “the gates of hell prevailing against the Church” means in Catholicism. If you want to discuss Orthodoxy, open a new thread. Because whether or not the gates of hell have prevailed against Orthodoxy is irrelevant to whether they have or not in Catholicism.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Kaesekopf on December 27, 2018, 06:36:54 PM
I reject your first sentence, really. 

Your entire post is based on it. 

First principles, mate.

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 07:02:59 PM
Okay, if we change it so that the sole epistomelogical authority is the Roman Church (whose infallible authority derived from the Pope), the other ideas are still applicable.

Nor is this a sufficient answer to “When do the gates of hell prevail?”
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 07:08:45 PM
Or maybe even change it to the Magisterium
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Davis Blank - EG on December 27, 2018, 07:52:07 PM
You've reached a conclusion in your life and are attempting to lead us to it.  This is not a socratic investigation into what the gates of hell statement means, but rather an attack on the Church with the goal of leading us out of her.

As you've squared the circle of divorce in your Church, we've squared the Vatican II circle.  We can each offer support for our own position (which has been done a thoudand times elsewhere), neither of which will convince the other.

We know VII and its popes are problematic in ways we cannot fully square away.  You know divorce and inner disagreements between Orthodox patriarchs are problematic in ways you cannot fully square away.

What protection from the gates of hell does not mean is a perfect Church with perfect clergy where everything is perfect and crystal clear.  It doesn't mean it in either the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 08:03:35 PM
Then when does the gates of hell prevail against the Church in accordance with Vatican I’s Ecclesiology?
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Prayerful on December 27, 2018, 08:24:47 PM
Francis is looking less and less credible. Italians ignore him, and his criticism probably boost Salvini and co. One deeply unconvincing change was his death penalty vapourings which sounded more Masonic than Catholic. There has not been one convincing or credible thing done during his time in office. PF has essentially shown that V2 is a big of crap.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Michael Wilson on December 27, 2018, 08:51:50 PM
Then when does the gates of hell prevail against the Church in accordance with Vatican I’s Ecclesiology?
Since the Church is indefectible, then the only question is how to square the present situation with the teaching of the Church. The answer that makes sense to me is sede-ism; the last 5 Popes have taught erroneous and harmful doctrine to the Church and have promulgated harmful discipline, therefore they cannot be true Popes. The reign of a false Pope is the worse trial that can befall the Church and the faithful. But a true successor to St. Peter will one day be elected and the Church will once again rise more glorious than before this crisis.   
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 11:12:54 PM
You've reached a conclusion in your life and are attempting to lead us to it.  This is not a socratic investigation into what the gates of hell statement means, but rather an attack on the Church with the goal of leading us out of her.

Nah, I haven't. I constantly go through this phase of questioning whether or not Orthodoxy is true, because let's be honest - history isn't absolutely clear. Recently, I've noticed that a key aspect of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (not the teaching as a whole, but an element of it) is present in the writings even of St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Patriarch Scholasticus, the last Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, and said key aspect (the Virgin Mary was sanctified by the Holy Spirit from the first moment of her conception) is ignored by Orthodoxy today. My mind turns back to Roman Catholicism, and then I realize how morally and spiritually depraved the entire Roman Catholic Church has become (the so called "Church of Nice", the "New Advent" Church, the Church of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, the Church of Blasphemy, Sacrilege, and Cold-Harded Pharisaicalism) and how contradictory the Popes are to the point that I cannot accept the "developments of doctrine" in my moral conscience. And then I'm back to Orthodoxy, but left unsatisfied. Before that, it was Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage, said Canon which seems to contradict the Orthodox notion of "Ancestral Sin", but is confirmed by the 7th Ecumenical Council and the Quinisext Council - said councils which are viewed as inspired as the Scriptures themselves. They are infallible and Tradition itself.

I just struggle with the idea that Vatican II is the catalyst which made me reject Roman Catholicism. What if I lived in the 18th century?


How can anybody believe the prohibition of the death penalty is a "development of doctrine?" Especially in light of St. Josaphat Kuntsevich, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas More...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Martyrdom_of_Thomas_Haukes.png/220px-Martyrdom_of_Thomas_Haukes.png)

Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 27, 2018, 11:20:09 PM
Answer to thread title:
Because human history has not ended yet.  Therefore, the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 27, 2018, 11:27:02 PM
Answer to thread title:
Because human history has not ended yet.  Therefore, the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed.

But according to Catholicism, the Roman Church can never defect, for if this happens, the Church disappears off the face of the earth.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 28, 2018, 01:24:10 AM
Answer to thread title:
Because human history has not ended yet.  Therefore, the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed.

But according to Catholicism, the Roman Church can never defect, for if this happens, the Church disappears off the face of the earth.

No. According to an inauthentic enlargement of the words of Our Lord, not a single operative in the See will ever defect, nor even the majority of them.  Yet that is not the way the Church has ever interpreted the words, '...and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."  Prevail means to definitely vanquish so as to cause the collapse or surrender of a person, group, or institution.

The forces of evil -- in and without the Roman Church -- have not prevailed against her.  Many within and without have threatened to, have tried to, are still trying to, and probably will try to.  Ultimately, they will not succeed.  That is the traditional, authoritative interpretation of His words.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 03:28:50 AM
No, it’s over. I’ve already given my reasons why.

Up until just this year I could’ve held on to the claims of indefectability - and that’s already hard with Pope John Paul 2’s canonization and Mother Teresa’s canonization. But these things demonstrate fully to me it’s over for Rome.

If Pope Paul VI is a Saint, then I don’t have to worry about hell in the slightest if I’m a Roman Catholic.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Xavier on December 28, 2018, 05:14:02 AM
Did hell's armies prevail against Christ when He lay dying on the Cross? No, not a bone was broken. Indefectibility is a divine Mystery.

It will happen to His Mystical Body as it happened to His Physical Body.

The "apparent death" of the Church is a prophetic prelude to the Church's Resurrection. Her greatest ever triumph in history will come next.

The gates of hell will prevail the day when God ceases to be God, and when hell freezes over. When the treason and perfidy of Judas in apostatizing from Christ becomes more commendable and praiseworthy than the faithfulness and fidelity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in remaining steadfastly loyal to Christ forever, even at the Cross.

That is to say, they will never ever prevail, and the divine promise of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all about constantly asking "have the gates of hell prevailed" with every passing day, but rather about trusting His God-given assurance that He will never forsake His Church, and that therefore we too must have unswerving fidelity to Her forever.

Gates literally means armies. The promise means, should legions of demons even visibly roam the earth, should hell with all its might try to tear us from the bosom of the Holy Catholic Church, mankind's one only ark of salvation, we must cling to this Ark of the New Noah with all our strength if we wish to triumph over the flood. That is all.

As for the Greek Church, it should try to make the case exegetically, and with Filioque. But the doctrine of Filioque can be easily proved from both Latin and Greek Fathers. And the plain exegetical sense of Matt 16:18, confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, is that Christ made the See of Peter the Rock of His Church and commanded all faithful and Bishops alike to remain with the Pope and with Rome. So let the Orthodox hasten to do this, and then all the storms buffeting all Christendom would be more quickly conquered. But even if they will not, or try to delay the will of God in this matter, God will look after His Church.

The divine promise was not granted to Constantinople or to Moscow, nor was it granted on the basis of the impossible premise of secularist caesaropapism, but only on the ancient canonical principle of Apostolic origin and divinely instituted primacy. Fr. Philip at Ephesus is witness that this ancient primacy derives from the Lord's promise, and Pope St. Damasus that it is based on the Apostolic origin of the Roman Church.

The death penalty issue, which is not definitively settled as dogmatic and de fide, could be understood as: in the ancient world and older times, there were more reasons for death penalty to be applied. In the modern world, for a variety of reasons, there are (allegedly) fewer or almost no circumstances where it would be necessary to preserve justice. It seems to be a prudential policy, not necessarily the final word.

There is no obligation to apply the death penalty: Christian states considered it the right of the state to do so in self-defense, and a possibility of clemency to show mercy to a repentant aggressor.

The modern attempts to change death penalty and just war are wrong.

Often, the just penalty of death has made criminals remorseful.

After that, the possibility of mercy is always an option. But let it be.

It is not even necessary to understand how to reconcile all this to be sure that God knows the answer and that we only need to be faithful.

Our duty as Christians is only to remain faithful to Christ and the Church.

Merry Christmas, Live.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 04:56:47 PM
Okay Xavier.

But are you sure about what you just said?

Pope Francis in his wisdom canonized a man who specifically endorsed the United Nations as a near-perfect institution second to the Church itself and openly endorsed it in it's entirety (seriously, he said these things, read the address), has said that the Muslims worship the same God as Christians (not that they worship one God, with the Christians, but specifically they worship the same God in addressing the Muslims outside Vatican II), destroyed and suppressed liturgical tradition, specifically creating an Ecumenical Mass and changing some basic fundamentals (versus populorum, which no Christian Apostolic liturgical tradition EVER did), lifted the anathemas against the Patriarch of Constantinople for literally no reason, and has taught that people need to respect the different religions of the world and allow them to exist.

I'm sure you have a place of prayer somewhere. Now, if you really believe and accept that the Holy Spirit is guiding Rome, I want you to print this picture out and kiss it like an Easterner, and ask for his intercession.

(https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/pope-paul-VI-gty-jt-181013_hpEmbed_2x3_992.jpg)

If you can't bring yourself to do it, you really don't trust Papal authority and don't believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.

Put your money where your mouth is and SUBMIT TO ROME.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Davis Blank - EG on December 28, 2018, 05:45:24 PM
That guy Dismas who spent his life thieving could not possibly be in Heaven.  But so says our Lord.  And even though he is in, we still have much to fear.

No one knows what Paul VI did in the last seconds of his life.  He should not be set as a model but that does not mean he is not a saint.

Were we alive during Arianism I suspect we'd count Catholicism as down and out, and yet despite 80% of bishops as heretics and 400 years of disaster, the Church's best years were yet ahead.  The seed grew into a large tree, now it will return to a seed, for it to grow once again.  We will not see it in our lifetime's, we will probably see little but decay, but apparently this is where and when God placed us.

Do not easily count out the world's oldest human institution (hint: it isn't merely human).  It's had many very dark times.  This is one very dark one.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 07:56:16 PM
That guy Dismas who spent his life thieving could not possibly be in Heaven.  But so says our Lord.  And even though he is in, we still have much to fear.

No one knows what Paul VI did in the last seconds of his life.  He should not be set as a model but that does not mean he is not a saint.

Were we alive during Arianism I suspect we'd count Catholicism as down and out, and yet despite 80% of bishops as heretics and 400 years of disaster, the Church's best years were yet ahead.  The seed grew into a large tree, now it will return to a seed, for it to grow once again.  We will not see it in our lifetime's, we will probably see little but decay, but apparently this is where and when God placed us.

Do not easily count out the world's oldest human institution (hint: it isn't merely human).  It's had many very dark times.  This is one very dark one.

The difference is that we know Dimas publicly repented, and that repentance is a model for us to follow. Pope Paul VI did not publicly repent, and all we know are the actions which he committed to to the end of his life without denouncing any of his actions.

Nestorius might've repented, as could've Arius, but by no means would I ever kiss an icon of either of them, or ask for their intercession. It would be sinful of me, for they, like Pope Paul VI, spent their whole life destroying the Church.


You bring the comparison to the Arian controversy - well, this time, the Pope is down and out, and Arius himself is canonized as a role-model.

Pope Liberius may have condemned Athanasius, but he still saw his error and repented, fighting against Arianism, and as such, he is a Saint in the East. Pope John Paul I, John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis all didn't see the errors of Pope Paul VI and pushed forward him as a role model. It's been 60 years.


If the Roman Catholic Church is THE Divine institution, there has to be some answer. If you can't answer it, then Rome isn't Divine, and either there is no Divine Institution, or it's elsewhere.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 08:24:20 PM
My original point is that there must be some type of litmus test of when the Church has lost, otherwise Christ's promise is pointless.

Vatican I seems to say with the dogma of Papal Infallibility that it is the Pope.

Thus, my litmus test - which is as minimalist is possible - would be the official administration of the Church itself under the Pope and the Magisterium on morality and doctrine alone.

However, it fails, as Pope Paul VI is canonized (he isn't merely in Heaven, he is a role model), the change to the Catechism with the exact words "the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." (that is, the death penalty is immoral insofar as it violates the dignity of a person - well, why don't we condemn God to hell then), and the fact that Lutherans are communing with Catholics in Germany and people can take communion while living in a state of mortal sin - officially, explicitly, with official, magisterial authority

More than this, the Pope claims that Vatican II's liturgical reforms are magisterially irreversible (the irony is that the changes to the Mass only happened on the argument that it's only discipline).

Either explain yourself, become a holocaust-denying Sedevacantist - where the Church has just disappeared with an "invisible Church" in place - become Orthodox, become a Jew, or become an Atheist.

You must pick one, and if you will still pledge your allegiance to this narcissistic demon in Rome, explain yourself.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/26BRQaiZM0IeyoJfa/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gerard on December 28, 2018, 09:14:20 PM
Wow.  There are some erroneous things being put forth on this thread. 

To be clear, The "Roman" Catholic Church is the nickname of the Latin Church of the "Catholic Church" which has 23 subsidiary Churches. 

The powers/ gates  of Hell "prevailing" indicates not that the gates and powers of the Church cannot be breached but that the Church will eventually overwhelm and totally defeat evil when the Church actively engages in the war against principalities and powers.  Everyone seems to treat the phrase as if it says, "The Gates of the Church will always prevail against the powers of Hell." Or even a more silly rendition of the images of "gates" from Hell pro-actively attacking the Church. 

No Pope has bound the Universal Church to embrace a heresy or deny a part of the Deposit of Faith.  What Popes believe and teach in off the hand or even written comments are simply their opinions and policies, they don't alter the teaching of the Church.  Francis may say what he wants about the death penalty, but he's wrong.  Until he tries to formally bind the Church to his error he is simply wrong.  After that, he is either never going to do it, or automatically lose the office if he tries to.  More likely he will never declare it.  Changing wording in a catechism doesn't qualify as a binding statement of magisterial force.  It's simply putting an erroneous statement into a Catechism. 

Canonizations are simply honorifics based on human knowledge, prudence and decisions.  They are not part of the Deposit of Faith.  They are not apostolic and papal canonizations are not exercises in infallibility. 

Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Davis Blank - EG on December 28, 2018, 09:51:34 PM
Why must there be a litmus test?  If God Himself promises X, why does He need to provide a litmus test so that we can keep testing X to see if He kept His promise?  I recall Him saying something about ye of little faith.

Paul VI is either in Heaven or not.  If he is then the Church's declaration that he is in Heaven is correct, and apparently he repented before he passed.  Are you willing to venerate St. Dismas?  If yes, then is it because he repented?  It's certainly not for the life he lived.  If so, then so too can you venerate Paul VI for that reason.  If you don't wish to venerate Paul VI then you can also for the same reason not venerate St. Dismas.  I recall a homily on Sensus Fidelium by that priest who does 75% of the homilies there that a very top Nazi leader had a multi-hours long confession and absolution immediately preceding his execution, and that he very well may he in Heaven with our Lord right now.  Will you venerate that saint?

Canonizations do not decree that we must venerate any of these saints.  If you do not want to, don't.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 09:55:17 PM
Wow.  There are some erroneous things being put forth on this thread. 

To be clear, The "Roman" Catholic Church is the nickname of the Latin Church of the "Catholic Church" which has 23 subsidiary Churches. 


The 22 of which make up less than 5% of the "Catholic Church."

I could argue that Orthodoxy is both Western and Eastern - because both ROCOR and Antioch have Western Rite Liturgies based on the Tridentine Mass, but I'm not gonna make that argument, because the amount of those Churches are so small compared to the Eastern Rite that it's not really relevant.


Quote
The powers/ gates  of Hell "prevailing" indicates not that the gates and powers of the Church cannot be breached but that the Church will eventually overwhelm and totally defeat evil when the Church actively engages in the war against principalities and powers.  Everyone seems to treat the phrase as if it says, "The Gates of the Church will always prevail against the powers of Hell." Or even a more silly rendition of the images of "gates" from Hell pro-actively attacking the Church. 

The Church must always exist, and because the Pope is the final authority in the Catholic Church in all matters of discipline, morality, and dogma, with immediate jurisdiction everywhere, and the ability to proclaim infallible doctrines,

the Roman Church can never, ever fall from standing, because if it falls, the Catholic Church would fall from standing.

Unfortunately, it seems to me it has happened. You aren't actually disputing the facts I bring up, you are trying to change the epistemological certainty of the Catholic Church in a doctrine absolutely foreign to what Rome has spoken - with the case being closed.


Quote
No Pope has bound the Universal Church to embrace a heresy or deny a part of the Deposit of Faith.  What Popes believe and teach in off the hand or even written comments are simply their opinions and policies, they don't alter the teaching of the Church.  Francis may say what he wants about the death penalty, but he's wrong.  Until he tries to formally bind the Church to his error he is simply wrong.  After that, he is either never going to do it, or automatically lose the office if he tries to.  More likely he will never declare it.  Changing wording in a catechism doesn't qualify as a binding statement of magisterial force.  It's simply putting an erroneous statement into a Catechism. 

Are not canonizations binding? If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself. And the Catechism is Rome's official teaching, and it's what's to believed everywhere by everyone, and it is officially a document of the Magisterium. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to do so. It's binding.


Quote
Canonizations are simply honorifics based on human knowledge, prudence and decisions.  They are not part of the Deposit of Faith.  They are not apostolic and papal canonizations are not exercises in infallibility.

"To the honour of the holy and undivided Trinity,
for the exaltation of the Catholic faith
and the increase of the Christian life,
by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Ourselves,
after mature deliberation
and frequent prayer for the Divine assistance,
with the advice of Our venerable brethren,
We decree and define .... to be a saint,
and We place (his or her) name in the catalogue of Saints,
decreeing that in the universal Church
(he or she) is to be venerated among the Saints with pious devotion.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Also, Pope Benedict said that they are, as did almost every 19th century Catholic theologian.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 10:07:57 PM
Why must there be a litmus test?  If God Himself promises X, why does He need to provide a litmus test so that we can keep testing X to see if He kept His promise?  I recall Him saying something about ye of little faith.

Because Jesus's promise would mean nothing, and I would therefore be able to be a Protestant or a Mormon or a Gnostic or a member of the Heaven's Gate Cult and still be in good standing, because they all claim to be the pure, unfiltered Truth of what Jesus spoke.

Quote
Paul VI is either in Heaven or not.  If he is then the Church's declaration that he is in Heaven is correct, and apparently he repented before he passed.  Are you willing to venerate St. Dismas?  If yes, then is it because he repented?  It's certainly not for the life he lived.  If so, then so too can you venerate Paul VI for that reason.

If St. Dismas didn't publicly repent in the Gospel and died in silence, I wouldn't be venerating him in the slightest. He's ONLY a Saint because he announced to Christ "remember me in your Kingdom." That alone is the ONLY reason he's a Saint.

Pope Paul VI did not publicly repent. I hope he is in Heaven, but by no means will I ever venerate him while I breathe a single breath on this earth.

See, here's the thing. In the "good ole days", most heresies were done by arrogant people who tried to rationalize the inconceivable. Nestorianism tried to answer how the infinity of God could become a finite human, as did Arianism and Eutychianism. Modalism tried to answer how three different Persons could be the same God. Origenism tried to answer the age-old question of Theodicy and Hell.

They were all attempts to try to make the Faith viable philosophically - arrogant attempts, but attempts nonetheless.

Eutyches was extremely uninformed and confused - the interrogation by Saint Flavian demonstrates this, Eutyches didn't know what he was talking about.

Despite these intentions, he is still a heretic whom I will never venerate.

What does this say about Pope Paul VI?

Pope Paul VI did not try to rationalize the Faith - he merely tried to destroy it by undermining the liturgical and moral foundations of the Faith, and take a knee to the secular world. To stop fighting and obey the god of this world.

It was Pope Paul VI who created the documents of Vatican II, changed the liturgy, and pushed forward all the moral changes of the Church. Pope John XXIII only started Vatican II.

Quote
Canonizations do not decree that we must venerate any of these saints.  If you do not want to, don't.

"We decree and define .... to be a saint,
and We place (his or her) name in the catalogue of Saints,
decreeing that in the universal Church
(he or she) is to be venerated among the Saints with pious devotion.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 28, 2018, 10:19:15 PM
This brings us back to the question - when does the gates of hell prevail against the Church? The past few posts have been attempts to circumvent the question rather than answer it.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gardener on December 28, 2018, 11:55:52 PM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 12:08:04 AM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gerard on December 29, 2018, 01:46:38 AM

Quote
The powers/ gates  of Hell "prevailing" indicates not that the gates and powers of the Church cannot be breached but that the Church will eventually overwhelm and totally defeat evil when the Church actively engages in the war against principalities and powers.  Everyone seems to treat the phrase as if it says, "The Gates of the Church will always prevail against the powers of Hell." Or even a more silly rendition of the images of "gates" from Hell pro-actively attacking the Church. 

The Church must always exist, and because the Pope is the final authority in the Catholic Church in all matters of discipline, morality, and dogma, with immediate jurisdiction everywhere, and the ability to proclaim infallible doctrines, the Roman Church can never, ever fall from standing, because if it falls, the Catholic Church would fall from standing.

What do you mean "from standing?" 

Quote
Unfortunately, it seems to me it has happened.

What "it" are you referring to?  Can you name a single dogma or truth of the faith, the universal Church is required to renounce or a new policy binding the faithful that is heresy? 

Quote
You aren't actually disputing the facts I bring up, you are trying to change the epistemological certainty of the Catholic Church in a doctrine absolutely foreign to what Rome has spoken - with the case being closed.

I'm not trying to change anything.  I'm clarifying what indefectibility of the Church means and not an exaggerated caricature based on Neo-Ultramontanism. 

Quote
Quote
No Pope has bound the Universal Church to embrace a heresy or deny a part of the Deposit of Faith.  What Popes believe and teach in off the hand or even written comments are simply their opinions and policies, they don't alter the teaching of the Church.  Francis may say what he wants about the death penalty, but he's wrong.  Until he tries to formally bind the Church to his error he is simply wrong.  After that, he is either never going to do it, or automatically lose the office if he tries to.  More likely he will never declare it.  Changing wording in a catechism doesn't qualify as a binding statement of magisterial force.  It's simply putting an erroneous statement into a Catechism. 

Are not canonizations binding?

The canonization is a name on a piece of paper.  How does that bind me?  How am I "bound" in faith by a name on a list or the choice of musical pieces in a particular liturgy? 

Quote
If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?

It depends on what you mean by "rejecting" are you claiming that the name of the saint must be expunged?  By what authority?  If you are skeptical of the soul of the named being in Heaven, why would you speak of some kind of judgment for which you have no power to exclaim? 

To know a soul is damned requires the same new revelation that would be required to know with certainty a soul is in Heaven. 

Quote
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself.


So what? A future Pope can withdraw it due to scandal if you like.  Cults of many declared saints have withered over time. 

Quote
And the Catechism is Rome's official teaching, and it's what's to believed everywhere by everyone, and it is officially a document of the Magisterium. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to do so. It's binding.

We are not bound to subjective, non-magisterially backed commentaries in Catechisms.  That's absurd on its face.  We are not bound to every statement in a papal bull or encyclical or conciliar document, just the doctrinal aspect. 

No Catechism is infallible and we're not bound to every Catechisms assertions nor formulations. 


Quote
Canonizations are simply honorifics based on human knowledge, prudence and decisions.  They are not part of the Deposit of Faith.  They are not apostolic and papal canonizations are not exercises in infallibility.

Quote
"To the honour of the holy and undivided Trinity,
for the exaltation of the Catholic faith
and the increase of the Christian life,
by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Ourselves,
after mature deliberation
and frequent prayer for the Divine assistance,
with the advice of Our venerable brethren,
We decree and define .... to be a saint,
and We place (his or her) name in the catalogue of Saints,
decreeing that in the universal Church
(he or she) is to be venerated among the Saints with pious devotion.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Also, Pope Benedict said that they are, as did almost every 19th century Catholic theologian.



First, 19th century theologians were vastly invested in the ideas of Neo-Ultramontanism and they were sorely disappointed by the decrees of Vatican I.  Consequently, they virtually ignored Vatican I and proceeded to "extend" the definition of infallibility illicitly in their manuals. 

Second, I don't know which Pope Benedict you are referring to.  If it's Pope Benedict XIV, he did not claim they were infallible.  He proceeded to state that people who definitively declared that the Church had erred in "this or that" canonization was if not a heretic (since he couldn't actually determine it in a general statement since He didn't know. )  He simply stated that the person was insolent. 

Third, the language of a canonization is not sufficient to change its nature.  Revelation is required to know how a soul has fared when in front of the Judgement seat of God.  For a Pope to infallibly canonize he would be adding new, specific information to the Deposit of Faith that is post-Apostolic.  The Church dogmatically teaches that public revelation closed with the death of St. John the Apostle. 


Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gerard on December 29, 2018, 01:49:02 AM
This brings us back to the question - when does the gates of hell prevail against the Church? The past few posts have been attempts to circumvent the question rather than answer it.


The gates of Hell don't prevail against the Church when the Church engages in her full apostolic mission.  If there is no resistance to them the gates of Hell stand. 
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
Quote
What do you mean "from standing?" 

I'm quoting Saint Gregory the Great's language.

The Church teaching the Truth. If the Church embraces one explicit falsehood and teaches it, the Church no longer teaches the Truth in it's entirety and instead teaches falsehood in it's entirety.

Quote
Unfortunately, it seems to me it has happened.

Quote
What "it" are you referring to?  Can you name a single dogma or truth of the faith, the universal Church is required to renounce or a new policy binding the faithful that is heresy? 

Intercommunion with Lutherans...intercommunion with Orthodox...the change to the Death Penalty...communion while in a state of adultery..."extraordinary Eucharistic ministers"...

Quote
You aren't actually disputing the facts I bring up, you are trying to change the epistemological certainty of the Catholic Church in a doctrine absolutely foreign to what Rome has spoken - with the case being closed.

Quote
I'm not trying to change anything.  I'm clarifying what indefectibility of the Church means and not an exaggerated caricature based on Neo-Ultramontanism. 

Fair enough, but for me, based on the debates I've had, it sometimes can be hard from defining a caricature from reality.

Still, thanks for clarifying, it means a lot.

Quote
If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?
Quote
It depends on what you mean by "rejecting" are you claiming that the name of the saint must be expunged?  By what authority?  If you are skeptical of the soul of the named being in Heaven, why would you speak of some kind of judgment for which you have no power to exclaim? 

To know a soul is damned requires the same new revelation that would be required to know with certainty a soul is in Heaven. 

Well, a couple of things.

1. A revelation should not be against the authority of the Church, which you argued on the thread "A Theory about the Crisis in the Church..."

2. If Saint Cyril had the authority to rebuke Nestorius while he was still alive, St. Leo the Great and those at Chalcedon had the authority to rebuke Eutyches and Nestorius, if the Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council had the authority to curse the dead Pope Honorius, if Saint Paul had the authority to not only rebuke Saint Peter himself, but several Church communities that delved into Judaization, Paganism, Adultery, and Schism, etc., but we are not allowed to rebuke the actions of those who did horrible things, one has to ask the question why for 1960 years the Church was able to curse people and now it's a sin to do so.

Quote
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself.

Quote
So what?

How is it that the Church cursed Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Tertullian, Origen, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, but Pope Paul VI, who was the Pope, arguably did things just as bad if not worse, is a Saint? Why did the Church curse these other people in the first place - and that's not to mention the burning at the stake of several heretics and sinners, like Bruno?

Quote
And the Catechism is Rome's official teaching, and it's what's to believed everywhere by everyone, and it is officially a document of the Magisterium. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to do so. It's binding.

Quote
We are not bound to subjective, non-magisterially backed commentaries in Catechisms.  That's absurd on its face.  We are not bound to every statement in a papal bull or encyclical or conciliar document, just the doctrinal aspect. 

No Catechism is infallible and we're not bound to every Catechisms assertions nor formulations. 

Can you provide evidence that the Catechism published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith isn't magisterial?


Quote
First, 19th century theologians were vastly invested in the ideas of Neo-Ultramontanism and they were sorely disappointed by the decrees of Vatican I.  Consequently, they virtually ignored Vatican I and proceeded to "extend" the definition of infallibility illicitly in their manuals. 

Second, I don't know which Pope Benedict you are referring to.  If it's Pope Benedict XIV, he did not claim they were infallible.  He proceeded to state that people who definitively declared that the Church had erred in "this or that" canonization was if not a heretic (since he couldn't actually determine it in a general statement since He didn't know. )  He simply stated that the person was insolent. 

Third, the language of a canonization is not sufficient to change its nature.  Revelation is required to know how a soul has fared when in front of the Judgement seat of God.  For a Pope to infallibly canonize he would be adding new, specific information to the Deposit of Faith that is post-Apostolic.  The Church dogmatically teaches that public revelation closed with the death of St. John the Apostle.


Pope Benedict XVI, I have to find the encyclical where he says it.

But interesting argument; still, it's problematic to me at least doctrinally that the Church has canonized someone whose life is contradictory to the Saints of the past 1960 years, especially to the likes of Pope Pius X (who literally has the opposite life to Pope Paul VI), and even Saint Benedict, who destroyed a sanctuary to Apollo and created an oratory to Saint John the Apostle (who clearly didn't respect different religions in peace and love, like his holiness commanded us to do).
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 03:56:41 PM
bump
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Davis Blank - EG on December 29, 2018, 06:40:13 PM
Quote
Because Jesus's promise would mean nothing, and I would therefore be able to be a Protestant or a Mormon or a Gnostic or a member of the Heaven's Gate Cult and still be in good standing, because they all claim to be the pure, unfiltered Truth of what Jesus spoke.

Jesus' promise about the gates of hell was not to anyone whom claimed to tell the truth, it was to Peter and the Church Jesus founded on him.  Only the Catholic, and to a good degree Orthodox, have any reasonable claim to be that Church.

Jesus' litmus test happened on Easter Sunday.  He passed.  The test, for us, is to determine which Church is His Church.  That is a matter of history and Scripture.  Again, only Catholics / Orthodox have any good claim to this.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gardener on December 29, 2018, 07:23:48 PM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 07:33:36 PM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.

You know very well I've explained the whole cliche "Divorce" and "Contraception" argument on other threads in the past, with how Rome has been inconsistent pre-schism and post-schism on Divorce (your argument being "well, this invisible standard which Rome holds to today is really in line with Truth, and the past was erroneous", even though you won't take that same standard and apply it to Rome today), and how Contraception is only allowed via Economia (in my opinion, erroneously) but still viewed as morally unacceptable, unlike the "use NFP to stop kids from pestering your life" approach which Rome has endorsed, even though NFP has the same intent and means as artificial contraception - to prevent sex from having a procreative purpose and allow it for pure pleasure alone.


Needless to say that in Orthodoxy, each Apostolic Bishop holding the full Truth possesses the entire Church, and if 99% of the Bishops fell into heresy, that one Bishop would be the Catholic Church (as Saint Athanasius says).

Rome's epistemological foundation is not every single bishop, but one Superbishop (hence infallibility).


So it isn't based on emotion, but rather logic.

I'm not gonna address the divorce contraception "ha, gotcha" argument nymore on this thread, because all it will do is you putting fingers in your ears and ignore the original topic which I posted.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 07:45:02 PM
Also, if the "Orthodox problem" you refer to is the Moscow Constantinople schism ("Ugh, thank God we have a Pope, we don't have canonically irregular problems"), you don't know Christian history at all.

During the time of Saint John Chrysostom, there were two Patriarchs of Antioch, with one not in communion with Rome. Saint John Chrysostom spent most of his life not in communion with Rome under Patriarch Meletius (not Patriarch Paulinus, who was Rome's guy), said Patriarch not only do all the Antiochians in communion with Rome trace their line to, but Patriarch Meletius presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Council.

During the time of Council of Ephesus - the Third Ecumenical Council - the Antiochians and Alexandrians excommunicated each other, with both being in communion with Rome, until Alexandria was favored over Antioch.

During the Photian schism, Constantinople and Rome broke with each other, but Rome was in communion and Constantinople was in communion with all the other Eastern Patriarchs.


And that's not to mention all the other canonical issues Rome today faces. Most people would classify the SSPX as "canonically irregular." Even Catholic Answers has said that Catholics may attend Mass there. Okay, even though it's debatable whether the SSPX is schismatic or not, what about the SSJK? They are in schism with the Ukrainian Catholics, but they are in communion with the SSPX. Are the SSJK schismatic? What about the SSPV, who were in communion with the SSPX but are now in schism with the SSPX?

Even though they are canonically okay, it's worth mentioning there are 3 Patriarchs of Antioch in Rome's Communion (the Syriac, the Melkites, and the Maronites, who all claim to be the true successor to the Ancient Antiochian Church of the New Testament).

Say what you will, but regardless if you go to a Constantinople Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church, you will have better confidence of receiving an orthodox Christian priest or bishop compared to a typical Novus Ordo Catholic priest or bishop. The whole schism is geopolitics, not doctrine.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Davis Blank - EG on December 29, 2018, 08:27:57 PM
This puts the laity primarily in charge of determining the truth from falsehood.  Catholicism does not completely abrogate the need to put your thinking cap on, but the onus is primarily on the institution of the Church.

God is the truth.  Some will think, if I find the truth, that is where God is.  Others will think if I find where God is, there is the truth.  Which way did Jesus set up for us?  I believe He founded a Church, and by being within that Church, I can find the truth.  I believe you are following the former path.

I do not believe the human mind can dot every i and cross every t of the truth.  Some examples of things we cannot honestly make sense of: the Trinity, Jesus as eternal yet begotten, Jesus incarnating.  Some people accept these truths that the Church teaches (which our minds cannot make sense of) and then get lost in the weeds trying (in vain) to make perfect sense out of other teachings of the Church.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gardener on December 29, 2018, 08:36:44 PM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.

You know very well I've explained the whole cliche "Divorce" and "Contraception" argument on other threads in the past, with how Rome has been inconsistent pre-schism and post-schism on Divorce (your argument being "well, this invisible standard which Rome holds to today is really in line with Truth, and the past was erroneous", even though you won't take that same standard and apply it to Rome today), and how Contraception is only allowed via Economia (in my opinion, erroneously) but still viewed as morally unacceptable, unlike the "use NFP to stop kids from pestering your life" approach which Rome has endorsed, even though NFP has the same intent and means as artificial contraception - to prevent sex from having a procreative purpose and allow it for pure pleasure alone.


Needless to say that in Orthodoxy, each Apostolic Bishop holding the full Truth possesses the entire Church, and if 99% of the Bishops fell into heresy, that one Bishop would be the Catholic Church (as Saint Athanasius says).

Rome's epistemological foundation is not every single bishop, but one Superbishop (hence infallibility).


So it isn't based on emotion, but rather logic.

I'm not gonna address the divorce contraception "ha, gotcha" argument nymore on this thread, because all it will do is you putting fingers in your ears and ignore the original topic which I posted.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread.

I don't know what so unclear about:

Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 08:56:57 PM
Okay, fine. This whole thread is not a search of emotion, but rather theology.

So, as you've stated, can you define and explain a standard which is acceptable to all parties, such that it can be accepted by all parties, that is consistent with the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church?


Your primary criticism in which you assume my intentions is that I didn't apply the same standard to Orthodoxy. What problems does Orthodoxy have today, where I'm prejudiced in my application of standards, compared to Catholicism? And why is it relevant to the discussion?

If it's divorce and contraception, I've given a succinct answer here to address your concerns, and I'm hesitant (hence why I refused) to discuss it in grandiose detail because I believe that it will steer away the discussion. But if you want to discuss it in grandiose detail, as you believe that the validity of your point of view depends on it, go ahead.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 09:03:09 PM
I refused also because I don't see how the standing of the Orthodox Church ought to affect the standing of the Catholic Church, unless you believe that somehow the Orthodox Church's standing depends on the Catholic Church or vice-versa (as if there was some invisible Church out there).

Orthodoxy can be a big pile of crap (which it very well may be), but that doesn't matter in the question of if the Catholic Church has fallen from standing.

It doesn't actually answer the question of how the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome, if they have, or if they have not. Orthodoxy can teach abortion, homosexuality, and Satanism is acceptable, but that would not change the answer to the question if the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 09:04:38 PM
I also don't see how you've ignored my post about me doubting Orthodoxy because of the history of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church and Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gardener on December 29, 2018, 09:08:40 PM
Okay, fine. This whole thread is not a search of emotion, but rather theology.

So, as you've stated, can you define and explain a standard which is acceptable to all parties, such that it can be accepted by all parties, that is consistent with the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church?


Your primary criticism in which you assume my intentions is that I didn't apply the same standard to Orthodoxy. What problems does Orthodoxy have today, where I'm prejudiced in my application of standards, compared to Catholicism? And why is it relevant to the discussion?

If it's divorce and contraception, I've given a succinct answer here to address your concerns, and I'm hesitant (hence why I refused) to discuss it in grandiose detail because I believe that it will steer away the discussion. But if you want to discuss it in grandiose detail, as you believe that the validity of your point of view depends on it, go ahead.

No, YOU need to define it since you are asking the question. Only from there can it be possible for a rapid honing in on where your understanding is incorrect and a correction be made. And only then can we determine if you agree or not before any further discussion can take place.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 29, 2018, 09:32:05 PM
p. According to Christ's promise, the Gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church.
p. This means that the Roman Catholic Church, built on Peter, is indefectible.
p. The Roman Church being indefectible means that I can go to Rome for teachings as defined by the Pope and at least the level of the Ordinary Magisterium, as well as the policy / administration of the Roman Church, as well as look to their guidance for whom I should emulate as a role model in terms of whom is canonized as a Saint, with no mistakes that can be dangerous to my salvation.
p. The Roman Church cannot teach things differently in terms of morality and dogma than what it did in the past to such a degree that it flat out contradicts what it taught in the past, as this is dangerous to my salvation.
p. If it teaches things which are dangerous to my salvation, the Church defects.
p. The Roman Church today teaches defined things by the Pope and at least the level of Ordinary Magisterium, as well as the policy / administration of the Roman Church, which are different than the past to such a degree that it flat out contradicts the past, and has canonized people who are not moral role models to the Saints in the past.
p. The Roman Catholic Church teaches things which are dangerous to my salvation.
p. The Roman Catholic Church, built on Peter, therefore is not indefectible (it is defectible)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]

c. Ergo, Christ is a liar, as the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Gerard on December 30, 2018, 01:14:21 AM
Quote
What do you mean "from standing?" 

I'm quoting Saint Gregory the Great's language.

The Church teaching the Truth. If the Church embraces one explicit falsehood and teaches it, the Church no longer teaches the Truth in it's entirety and instead teaches falsehood in it's entirety.

The distinction has to be made between "the Church" and "the Churchmen"…A Churchman, even a Pope may not reference the Athanasian Creed or even the Nicene Creed but that doesn't stop the Athanasian Creed or Nicene from being the teaching of the Church. 

Quote
Quote
What "it" are you referring to?  Can you name a single dogma or truth of the faith, the universal Church is required to renounce or a new policy binding the faithful that is heresy? 

Intercommunion with Lutherans...intercommunion with Orthodox...the change to the Death Penalty...communion while in a state of adultery..."extraordinary Eucharistic ministers"…

Intercommunions are scandals by Churchmen.  I've never been bound to believe that I can validly receive communion from a Lutheran minister.  It's not even a option for a Catholic.  Giving communion to a Lutheran is a scandal and sacrilege unless they comport to the most narrow understanding of when it's permissible.  (ie. Deathbed conversion.) 

The Orthodox is a situation of in case of absolute necessity a Catholic may receive valid sacraments from them.  (whether they will give them is another story) 

The death penalty is an error on the part of the Pope and he's wrong whether it goes into the catechism or not.  His personal opinion can't bind the whole Church to the opposite of a firmly established and apostolic (even pre-Apostolic ) teaching. 


Quote
Quote
If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?
Quote
It depends on what you mean by "rejecting" are you claiming that the name of the saint must be expunged?  By what authority?  If you are skeptical of the soul of the named being in Heaven, why would you speak of some kind of judgment for which you have no power to exclaim? 

To know a soul is damned requires the same new revelation that would be required to know with certainty a soul is in Heaven. 

Well, a couple of things.

1. A revelation should not be against the authority of the Church, which you argued on the thread "A Theory about the Crisis in the Church..."

A private revelation can't bind the Church since it is not part of the Deposit of Faith.  Similarly, a canonization cannot be bound as a part of public revelation since it is post-apostolic.  Vatican I defines the Pope as not being established to define new doctrines, but simply to protect the Deposit of Faith given by the Apostles.   The Assumption of the Blessed Mother is infallible because it is taught as Apostolic and not a canonization from an event that occurred after the Apostles died off. 


Quote
2. If Saint Cyril had the authority to rebuke Nestorius while he was still alive, St. Leo the Great and those at Chalcedon had the authority to rebuke Eutyches and Nestorius, if the Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council had the authority to curse the dead Pope Honorius, if Saint Paul had the authority to not only rebuke Saint Peter himself, but several Church communities that delved into Judaization, Paganism, Adultery, and Schism, etc., but we are not allowed to rebuke the actions of those who did horrible things, one has to ask the question why for 1960 years the Church was able to curse people and now it's a sin to do so.

We need to clarify the language (which changes over several millennia)  a rebuke is simply a correction from a falsehood to the truth.  A curse in its true sense is an appeal to demons to harm others. 

The prudential element of how and when and if a rebuke is necessary is simply a human decision hopefully guided by the grace of God.  If it's truly prudential, it will bear fruit at some point.  If not, it's simply cowardice or foolhardiness or disloyalty by the individuals involved, no matter what office they hold. And in those cases it is necessary for inferiors to rebuke superiors. 

Quote
Quote
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself.

Quote
So what?

How is it that the Church cursed Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Tertullian, Origen, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, but Pope Paul VI, who was the Pope, arguably did things just as bad if not worse, is a Saint? Why did the Church curse these other people in the first place - and that's not to mention the burning at the stake of several heretics and sinners, like Bruno?

Pope Paul VI did a lot of imprudent, foolish, things, mostly in the area of governance and policy of the Church.  He made no outright schismatic nor heretical moves like Luther, Origen, Henry or Calvin or Hobbes or Arius etc.   

Ultimately, you go through his Credo of the People of God and you wind up with the Catholic faith.  Humanae Vitae is another one.  When it came time to protecting the Deposit of Faith from actual corruption, as pathetic as he was, he didn't buckle.  None of that excuses his total misfire in understanding the world and the decisions that came from and followed the Council.  But all of those can actually be reversed by future Popes. 

Quote
Quote
We are not bound to subjective, non-magisterially backed commentaries in Catechisms.  That's absurd on its face.  We are not bound to every statement in a papal bull or encyclical or conciliar document, just the doctrinal aspect. 

No Catechism is infallible and we're not bound to every Catechisms assertions nor formulations. 

Can you provide evidence that the Catechism published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith isn't magisterial?

First, I pointed out that the commentaries within the catechism that are not magisterial are not binding.  The magisterial teachings that are repeated in the Catechism are binding.  You can't reject papal infallibility in the Catechism because it simply repeats Vatican I, or the Assumption or the teaching on the Real Presence. 

But commentaries that are inaccurate, (eg. the "positive reformulation" of the dogma of Outside the Church No Salvation is not an actual reformulation.  It expresses a different idea.) are not binding. 

The CCC also goes on with commentaries about Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire and "trust in God" for unbaptized babies which are hypotheses. while at the same time the CCC states that the Catholic Church knows of no other way to get into Heaven outside of the sacrament.

The CCC also speculates erroneously that people are born homosexual.  Stated with no proof, not being a part of the Deposit of Faith, any Catholic is free to point out the error of the statement. 
 

Quote
But interesting argument; still, it's problematic to me at least doctrinally that the Church has canonized someone whose life is contradictory to the Saints of the past 1960 years, especially to the likes of Pope Pius X (who literally has the opposite life to Pope Paul VI), and even Saint Benedict, who destroyed a sanctuary to Apollo and created an oratory to Saint John the Apostle (who clearly didn't respect different religions in peace and love, like his holiness commanded us to do).

Papal canonizations are only 1000 years old.  What we are dealing with today is the taking of a pious and carefully done custom and the politicization of it.  Only 3 Popes were canonized as saints in the last thousand years, prior to Vatican II.  Now, every Pope involved with Vatican II is canonized with the exception of Luciani (who probably will be).  They are participation trophies now.  I'm surprised Francis hasn't canonized Benedict XVI yet. 

No one actually knows the interior disposition or spiritual struggles of any of these popes.  We see things through the media from thousands of miles away and in a very limited form.  They may be in Heaven, Hell or Purgatory.  God will sort it out.   If one invokes them honestly for intercession, God will not waste the prayer or ignore the petition.  If you doubt their status, pray FOR their souls.  And invoke saints you have more faith in.  St. Michael, St. Joseph, the Blessed Mother, St. John the Baptist or St. Peter or Pius V, X etc.   Make a general petition to all saints and your Guardian Angel.  There's more than enough help to call upon.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Xavier on December 30, 2018, 06:21:25 AM
Quote from: Live
It doesn't actually answer the question of how the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome, if they have, or if they have not. Orthodoxy can teach abortion, homosexuality, and Satanism is acceptable, but that would not change the answer to the question if the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.

Live, my friend, what are you talking about? Are you not at least certain that (1) Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the human race, and (2) His True Apostolic Church is found either in the Catholic Church or in Orthodoxy? You should be sure of at least those two before going forward. If you are sure Apostolicity could be found in only one of those two Churches, then the fact of excluding Orthodoxy proves the Catholic Church is the true Church (by elimination). But a more general way of seeing it (which excludes all other possible contenders to the claim of being the true Church) is from the divine promise of Christ Himself.

You see, the other method of proceeding will ultimately lead to unbelief even in Christ. Christ's Promise is not an invitation to constantly test that promise, as much as it is to firmly believe in it. We are not to test the Lord our God, but to believe in His Word without wavering or backsliding, as all the Fathers and the Martyrs for Christ teach us.

If your Father when going on a journey said, even if all hell breaks loose, it will not prevail against your mother no matter what, so therefore remain with her if you want to remain with me - it means nothing more and nothing less than that we are to remain with the Roman Catholic Church until the end of time when He returns.

If this were not so, how could St. Augustine, St. Optatus and early Fathers who argued against the schism of Donatism know they were on the right side? What was the rule they gave to distinguish who was right - was it to doubt the promise of Christ? Not at all, it was based on the fact that the promise of Christ must find its fulfilment in Church history and that it actually does so in the See of Peter in Rome. When later there were schisms between Rome and Constantinople, orthodox monks of the Greek Church like St. Maximus of Constantinople (against monothelitism) and  St. Theodore of Constantinople (against Iconoclasm) sided with Roman and Petrine primacy over Constantinople. They interpreted the divine promise precisely as we do. Please see

https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

And as for canonization, according to the CE, the only thing declared infallibly in a canonization is that the person is in heaven. And if Pope Liberius (not formally canonized in the Catholic Church, although Pope St. Sylvester, and Pope St. Julius from the time of the Arian crisis, are) is a Saint in the view of the Eastern Churches, then there should be even less of an issue. You would presume he made some mistakes but later regretted it and this was not deemed very severe. So it should be similar.

Quote from: St. Maximus of Constantinople
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.

Quote from: St. Theodore of Constantinople
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 30, 2018, 02:40:14 PM
This thread is about whether the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome or not. I'm making a point if they did or not, whether or not Orthodoxy's claims are valid or not are IRRELEVANT.



That particular St. Maximos quote is spurious - along with another one that is used often, that comes from the same source, where he says the Roman Church has universal dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the Churches of God.

It comes from a source called the "Letter to Peter", which only exists in extracts of Latin with no Greek copy in tact (Saint Maximos the Confessor, being Greek, wrote his letters in Greek and they were subsequently translated by others. The fact that there is no Greek in tact should ring alarm bells, especially in light of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, Gratian's Decretum which used these Decretals, and other forgeries which were flourishing in the 9th century).


The quote from Saint Theodore I've not heard, and it would be prudent if you could actually cite it from it's original source, because simply copying and pasting a bunch of quotes from apologetic websites isn't helpful for debates.

I could quote this which is used by Protestants all the time from Pius X:

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, He is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."

But that's stupid, because there's no source for it.





And you're setting up a straw man by saying that I am constantly testing the promise.

No, a lot of things happened in the past year which seem to go against the promise, which I found it worthy to ask the question now.

I've set up my syllogistic structure, so either engage with it or don't.




And if Gardener is allowed to assume my intentions, I'll assume that you guys don't actually want to answer my question. I've set up the premises and the conclusion, so you can deal with that if you really want to engage in where I see a problem.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on December 30, 2018, 03:05:15 PM
Plus, Saint Theodore allegedly brings up the point which I've brought up.

"I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie."



So, using my premises and conclusion, disprove of it. Unless you won't because you can't defend yourself.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Xavier on January 01, 2019, 10:13:40 PM
Um, Live. St. Theodore's premise isn't the same as yours. His teaching is: Christ made a promise to the Roman Church. That promise cannot fail, nor could He Who is Truth have lied. Therefore, the Roman Church will be protected till the end of time. This is the basis on which he writes. Both to the emperor and to the Popes.

Your premise inverts the order, and places private judgment above the Truth of God's Word: Christ made a promise. My private judgment says He is (allegedly) not keeping that promise. And then your conclusion, as you put it, is "c. Ergo, Christ is a liar, as the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church." which is similar to what Protestants and others who left the Church wrongly claimed. The difference is Catholics take the foundational premise of what Christ claimed as an incontrovertible fact.

As for St. Maximus, it's well known he spent time in Rome and was a close ally of Pope St. Martin during the Monothelite troubles. His "Opuscula theologica" was written from Rome around 649. It is present in both Migne's volume of the Greek Fathers called Patrologia Graeca. Dom John Chapman, writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia, also cites it in his article on St. Maximus. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm Can you show me a scholarly work that claims St. Maximus didn't write the letter?

And the text of St. Theodore is universally acknowledged to be authentic. Again, a PG reference and a citation of the epistle number of St. Theodore was given in the link. If you want to read the same work cited and frankly acknowledged as authentic by an Orthodox theologian, you can find it in  here (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=I+witness+now+before+God+and+men+St.+Theodore+understanding+schism&source=bl&ots=ptXZeXE8e8&sig=L3DeJUAgF9eaAI4kuJYsjV1xfDE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji0_zQi87fAhVQFHIKHbRDADEQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=I%20witness%20now%20before%20God%20and%20men%20St.%20Theodore%20understanding%20schism&f=false)

Fr. Cleenewerck, who wrote that book, is an Orthodox Priest. See pg 201. This is Wiki's entry on Father, "Laurent Cleenewerck is an academic and theologian, serving as professor of international administration and theology for EUCLID (Euclid University), and on the faculty of the Ukrainian Catholic University and Humboldt State University. He is the rector of Eureka Orthodox Church."

So, there's no running away from the fact that St. Theodore testifies to the Catholic understanding of the Lord's Promise.

So all these are just excuses to turn away from the plain sense of the divine promise. We believe, as our Fathers, in both East and West have taught us, that God made a promise to the Church of St. Peter in Rome.

God said it. We believe it. So that settles it. Faith is taking God at His Word. If we don't have faith, we have to pray and ask God for that gift.

Quote from: Decree of Pope St. Damasus, #3, 382 A.D
the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that.

Can you show us any Father or Council that denies the divine promise applies to Rome?

Look. The 4th century when Pope St. Damasus wrote was a very troubled time, as you know. People may have said "Now look here Athanasius, or Damasus, Arianism is triumphant and the Church is in chaos. Obviously, the gates of hell have prevailed" but history proved them wrong, ultimately. And it will prove today's modernists wrong as well.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 02, 2019, 11:54:18 AM
The sole source of epistemological authority in Roman Catholicism is the Pope. Period, no ifs, buts, or what ifs.

Replace "sole" with "final" and the sentence would be correct.  There are in fact some other sources of epistemological authority besides the Pope: e.g. Bishops, theologians, Doctors, Fathers, etc. but they are subordinate to the Pope's.

Quote
We live in a situation where the Pope has made the death penalty morally inadmissible (meaning God sinned in Sodom and Gomorrah), has allowed intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics, has allowed the Chinese government to dictate the doctrine of the Chinese Catholic Church, and has allowed people living in an adulterous relationship to receive communion, in solemn, Papal decrees.

More than this are all of his private opinions about Evangelism ("Proselytism is a sin against Ecumenism"), the Eastern Rite Churches, and his promotion of pure religious indifferentism (https://christiannews.net/2016/01/09/pope-calls-for-collaboration-with-worlds-religions-those-who-meet-god-in-different-ways/), and his condemnation of prohibiting illegal immigration.

More than this is his canonization of Pope Paul VI, which officially - whether it's a legitimate canonization or infallible or even invalid - declares his entire life to be an imitation of Christ for the Catholic laity to follow

His mere private opinions don't count as "epistemological authority", so I'll skip those.  But, as for the Magisterial teachings, it's only your private judgment that death penalty being morally inadmissible now is incompatible with it being admissible earlier; you assume a specific basis for morality when you conclude that.  It's only your private judgment that intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics now is a Very Bad Thing.  And so on.

Now you can argue all these points until the cows come home; but by so doing you are implicitly denying your starting premise: namely that the Pope and no one else (which means not you) is the final source of epistemological authority.  To even ask the question (before coming to any answer) you are making yourself the final source of epistemological authority over and above the Pope.


Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: John Lamb on January 02, 2019, 01:56:07 PM
The Pope is in no way the source of Catholic doctrine (that is Christ & the apostles, preserved in sacred scripture & tradition), but is only its perpetual guarantor and protector. The charism of infallibility applies only in strict circumstances. If anything, the fact that the Modernist cabal infiltrating the Church has been so fearfully scrupulous in the way that it's proposed its own heretical doctrines – such as Francis using ambiguous language to alter Catholic doctrine on the death penalty in a catechism – is evidence of the power & divine protection of the papal office itself. If they weren't afraid of the papal office and its infallibility, they would be much more ruthless and direct in enforcing their doctrinal errors; but instead they skate around it with ambiguous terms, offhand suggestions, and dubious insinuations. You're acting like the Pope has called all the Catholic bishops together and has invoked their papal & ecumenical authority to teach Arianism or Nestorianism. That would be the "gates of hell prevailing". Not to be snarky but the Eastern Sees (Constantinople, for example) have outright declared heresies such as Arianism or Nestorianism before . . . unlike Rome, against which the greatest doctrinal accusation Eastern Orthodox have been able to draw up is the "Filioque", a teaching taught by all the Western Fathers, and corroborated by the Eastern Fathers as well (though in different terms according to the Greek usage distinct from the linguistic differences of the Latin usage, i.e. Greeks prefer to say "through the Son" rather than "from the Son", because of a unique Greek word which applies only to the Father, and which doesn't have any Latin synonym).
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 02, 2019, 06:07:48 PM
The Pope is in no way the source of Catholic doctrine (that is Christ & the apostles, preserved in sacred scripture & tradition), but is only its perpetual guarantor and protector. 

ReturnofLive isn't saying it is.  He's talking about the epistemological, not the ontological, source.

Quote
If anything, the fact that the Modernist cabal infiltrating the Church has been so fearfully scrupulous in the way that it's proposed its own heretical doctrines – such as Francis using ambiguous language to alter Catholic doctrine on the death penalty in a catechism – is evidence of the power & divine protection of the papal office itself.

In the final analysis, though, either the doctrine is altered, or not; and if so, either it is heretical, or not.

Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 03, 2019, 01:55:30 PM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.

You know very well I've explained the whole cliche "Divorce" and "Contraception" argument on other threads in the past, with how Rome has been inconsistent pre-schism and post-schism on Divorce (your argument being "well, this invisible standard which Rome holds to today is really in line with Truth, and the past was erroneous", even though you won't take that same standard and apply it to Rome today), and how Contraception is only allowed via Economia (in my opinion, erroneously) but still viewed as morally unacceptable, unlike the "use NFP to stop kids from pestering your life" approach which Rome has endorsed, even though NFP has the same intent and means as artificial contraception - to prevent sex from having a procreative purpose and allow it for pure pleasure alone.


Needless to say that in Orthodoxy, each Apostolic Bishop holding the full Truth possesses the entire Church, and if 99% of the Bishops fell into heresy, that one Bishop would be the Catholic Church (as Saint Athanasius says).

Rome's epistemological foundation is not every single bishop, but one Superbishop (hence infallibility).


So it isn't based on emotion, but rather logic.

I'm not gonna address the divorce contraception "ha, gotcha" argument nymore on this thread, because all it will do is you putting fingers in your ears and ignore the original topic which I posted.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread.

Sancta simplicitas!

And pray tell, how does one, as “Eastern Orthodox”, identify this one bishop and know that he represents the one, holy, universal and apostolic church and the true faith when all the others have fallen into heresy?

I won’t presume to know what you’d propose, but it has to come down to a private judgment in every case as to whom you want to believe, when no appeal can be made to any  bishop or group of bishops without begging the question, and in practice that means, in the means, people siding with their local churches.

For sure, ultimately it comes down to a private judgment for a Catholic too, but that is only in accepting the Papacy and identifying a legitimate pope as the beacon by which to find the Church. That’s not to say this isn’t without its own difficulties.

And, to a related point, the Orthodox also have to maintain, for apostolic succession, the he guarantee of at least one orthodox and true bishop always existing without particularity, having only pushed the issue a bit further back at the expense of making his identification difficult.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 03, 2019, 03:20:29 PM
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.

You know very well I've explained the whole cliche "Divorce" and "Contraception" argument on other threads in the past, with how Rome has been inconsistent pre-schism and post-schism on Divorce (your argument being "well, this invisible standard which Rome holds to today is really in line with Truth, and the past was erroneous", even though you won't take that same standard and apply it to Rome today), and how Contraception is only allowed via Economia (in my opinion, erroneously) but still viewed as morally unacceptable, unlike the "use NFP to stop kids from pestering your life" approach which Rome has endorsed, even though NFP has the same intent and means as artificial contraception - to prevent sex from having a procreative purpose and allow it for pure pleasure alone.


Needless to say that in Orthodoxy, each Apostolic Bishop holding the full Truth possesses the entire Church, and if 99% of the Bishops fell into heresy, that one Bishop would be the Catholic Church (as Saint Athanasius says).

Rome's epistemological foundation is not every single bishop, but one Superbishop (hence infallibility).


So it isn't based on emotion, but rather logic.

I'm not gonna address the divorce contraception "ha, gotcha" argument nymore on this thread, because all it will do is you putting fingers in your ears and ignore the original topic which I posted.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread.

Sancta simplicitas!

And pray tell, how does one, as “Eastern Orthodox”, identify this one bishop and know that he represents the one, holy, universal and apostolic church and the true faith when all the others have fallen into heresy?

The same way that you know Pope Francis is wrong when he allegedly says that he believes in annihilationisn - because of how contradictory it is.

Pray tell, how do you know when Pope Francis is speaking Ex Cathedra or not? Or if he is even the Pope?

Believe it or not, accepting Pope Francis or even Pope Pius V as a legitimate Pope or accepting that Saint Peter was given the role to be the Vicar of Christ ultimately hinges on a private judgment to accept such authority.

To say it doesn’t is epistomelogical nonsense.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 03, 2019, 03:31:36 PM
The sole source of epistemological authority in Roman Catholicism is the Pope. Period, no ifs, buts, or what ifs.

Replace "sole" with "final" and the sentence would be correct.  There are in fact some other sources of epistemological authority besides the Pope: e.g. Bishops, theologians, Doctors, Fathers, etc. but they are subordinate to the Pope's.

Quote
We live in a situation where the Pope has made the death penalty morally inadmissible (meaning God sinned in Sodom and Gomorrah), has allowed intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics, has allowed the Chinese government to dictate the doctrine of the Chinese Catholic Church, and has allowed people living in an adulterous relationship to receive communion, in solemn, Papal decrees.

More than this are all of his private opinions about Evangelism ("Proselytism is a sin against Ecumenism"), the Eastern Rite Churches, and his promotion of pure religious indifferentism (https://christiannews.net/2016/01/09/pope-calls-for-collaboration-with-worlds-religions-those-who-meet-god-in-different-ways/), and his condemnation of prohibiting illegal immigration.

More than this is his canonization of Pope Paul VI, which officially - whether it's a legitimate canonization or infallible or even invalid - declares his entire life to be an imitation of Christ for the Catholic laity to follow

His mere private opinions don't count as "epistemological authority", so I'll skip those.  But, as for the Magisterial teachings, it's only your private judgment that death penalty being morally inadmissible now is incompatible with it being admissible earlier; you assume a specific basis for morality when you conclude that.  It's only your private judgment that intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics now is a Very Bad Thing.  And so on.

Now you can argue all these points until the cows come home; but by so doing you are implicitly denying your starting premise: namely that the Pope and no one else (which means not you) is the final source of epistemological authority.  To even ask the question (before coming to any answer) you are making yourself the final source of epistemological authority over and above the Pope.

You’re forgetting the fact that according to Vatican I, the Pope has no authority to introduce new doctrines, only saintly safeguarding what has been handed down, and the Catholic Church believes that public revelation is closed - that is, from the death of John the Apostle to now, there cannot be any new revelation or changes or abbrogations of dogma or morality.

These things are what Rome - an epistomelogical authority - teaches - and this is what the source of my private judgment is, because to even accept the starting premise is in itself a private judgment.

This isn’t even to mention the fact that in terms of dogma and morality,, Popes must necessarily be subordinate to prior Popes in terms of declarations of morality and dogma, as those Popes were a final source of epistemological authority, and current and future Popes can’t rescind dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, as the final authority infallibly declared it a dogma.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 03, 2019, 03:46:32 PM
Now you can argue all these points until the cows come home; but by so doing you are implicitly denying your starting premise: namely that the Pope and no one else (which means not you) is the final source of epistemological authority.  To even ask the question (before coming to any answer) you are making yourself the final source of epistemological authority over and above the Pope.

You’re forgetting the fact that according to Vatican I, the Pope has no authority to introduce new doctrines, only saintly safeguarding what has been handed down, and the Catholic Church believes that public revelation is closed - that is, from the death of John the Apostle to now, there cannot be any new revelation or changes or abbrogations of dogma or morality.

These things are what Rome - an epistomelogical authority - teaches - and this is what the source of my private judgment is, because to even accept the starting premise is in itself a private judgment.

Yes, but the point is that the Pope, and not you, is the final epistemological authority on whether new doctrine has in fact been introduced or on whether morality has in fact been changed or dogma been abrogated.

So the moment you even ask the question you are implicitly denying that the Pope is the final authority.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 04, 2019, 01:39:29 PM
Now you can argue all these points until the cows come home; but by so doing you are implicitly denying your starting premise: namely that the Pope and no one else (which means not you) is the final source of epistemological authority.  To even ask the question (before coming to any answer) you are making yourself the final source of epistemological authority over and above the Pope.

You’re forgetting the fact that according to Vatican I, the Pope has no authority to introduce new doctrines, only saintly safeguarding what has been handed down, and the Catholic Church believes that public revelation is closed - that is, from the death of John the Apostle to now, there cannot be any new revelation or changes or abbrogations of dogma or morality.

These things are what Rome - an epistomelogical authority - teaches - and this is what the source of my private judgment is, because to even accept the starting premise is in itself a private judgment.

Yes, but the point is that the Pope, and not you, is the final epistemological authority on whether new doctrine has in fact been introduced or on whether morality has in fact been changed or dogma been abrogated.

So the moment you even ask the question you are implicitly denying that the Pope is the final authority.

My problem with this, though, is that it's unclear where the authority of the Pope extends to. Pope Alexander VI had a kid while he was Pope, and he ordered the Cardinals to make the kid a legitimate child - not a bastard child - to which they all laughed at.

Were the Cardinals gravely sinning because they didn't recognize the final epistemological authority of the Pope?

What about the whole Geocentrism debacle with Bruno and Galileo? Are we obliged to believe in physical, literal Geocentrism, given all of the evidence to the contrary - and the fact that Popes today don't believe in Geocentrism?

What about Pope Vigilius, who defended Nestorianism? What about Pope John XXII, who denied the Beatific Vision?

If the Pope orders me to behead Afghani children in the Middle East, am I obliged to do it?


Given the fact that there have been clearly immoral Popes in the past - even recognized by Popes today, the final epistemological authority, there must be some inherent level of private judgment to see whether or not that Pope is contradicting the morality and dogma of previous Popes. And if this is the case, if the Pope is clearly contradicting the past Popes and the past Saints to the point that it affects the discipline and dogma of the Roman Church, such that you can no longer go to the Pope for moral and dogmatic certainty, does this erode the claims of the Pope?
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 04, 2019, 02:21:36 PM
My problem with this, though, is that it's unclear where the authority of the Pope extends to. Pope Alexander VI had a kid while he was Pope, and he ordered the Cardinals to make the kid a legitimate child - not a bastard child - to which they all laughed at.

Were the Cardinals gravely sinning because they didn't recognize the final epistemological authority of the Pope?

That isn't epistemological authority here.  That was just a command outside the Pope's sphere of authority.

Quote
What about the whole Geocentrism debacle with Bruno and Galileo? Are we obliged to believe in physical, literal Geocentrism, given all of the evidence to the contrary - and the fact that Popes today don't believe in Geocentrism?

No, because the Popes of today officially permit geocentrism, as they have for about 200 years.

Quote
What about Pope Vigilius, who defended Nestorianism? What about Pope John XXII, who denied the Beatific Vision?

No, because both of these things have been solemnly defined by subsequent Popes.

Quote
If the Pope orders me to behead Afghani children in the Middle East, am I obliged to do it?

Again, that's an immoral command, not a claim to epistemological authority.  Also, to be a claim to epistemological authority a Pope must be stating something authoritatively, not merely giving a private opinion.


Quote
Given the fact that there have been clearly immoral Popes in the past - even recognized by Popes today, the final epistemological authority, there must be some inherent level of private judgment to see whether or not that Pope is contradicting the morality and dogma of previous Popes.

If you think that a Pope leading an immoral life in itself could even possibly contradict him being the final epistemological authority, you don't really understand what the term means.

Quote
And if this is the case, if the Pope is clearly contradicting the past Popes and the past Saints to the point that it affects the discipline and dogma of the Roman Church, such that you can no longer go to the Pope for moral and dogmatic certainty, does this erode the claims of the Pope?

Yes, but if the Pope is in fact the final epistemological authority, the antecedent is impossible.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 04, 2019, 03:21:59 PM
How was Pope Alexander VI outside of the Pope's epistemological authority? He was declaring that a certain human being was a valid, not a bastard. This is "knowledge."
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 04, 2019, 08:08:19 PM
How was Pope Alexander VI outside of the Pope's epistemological authority? He was declaring that a certain human being was a valid, not a bastard. This is "knowledge."

This is regarding granting a human being the legal status of legitimate.  Anyway, this is irrelevant as Catholicism doesn't maintain the Pope as final epistemological authority in absolutely everything (what he might say about math is not authoritative), but only in matters of religion (broadly defined, including morality, etc.).

I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this.  Do you accept the Pope as final epistemological authority or not?  If so, that even precludes asking the question of whether he might be wrong.  Or are you making the converse argument that since the Pope was wrong, he must not have such authority.  If so, I'd like to ask how you know there are no contradictions in Scripture, despite the numerous ones documented by non-Christians.  Is it because you have submitted Scripture to your personal judgment and analysis and determined that the non-Christians are wrong and there are no contradictions, or is it because you a priori accept Divine inspiration of Scripture, which precludes the possibility of error?
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 05, 2019, 12:35:35 AM
How was Pope Alexander VI outside of the Pope's epistemological authority? He was declaring that a certain human being was a valid, not a bastard. This is "knowledge."

This is regarding granting a human being the legal status of legitimate.  Anyway, this is irrelevant as Catholicism doesn't maintain the Pope as final epistemological authority in absolutely everything (what he might say about math is not authoritative), but only in matters of religion (broadly defined, including morality, etc.)

I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this.  Do you accept the Pope as final epistemological authority or not?


There are two things I am getting at, the first of which needs elaborating on.

What exactly is "Faith" and what exactly is "Morality" is in of itself broad due to the fact that these fields intersect with each other and others. Many Traditional Catholics will argue that Evolutionism is a heresy that needs to be rejected, whereas others will say that Evolutionary theory or OEC is a perfectly legitimate theory for Catholics to hold.

Now, the Council of Carthage, presided by Saint Augustine, was ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council, anathematizes specifically anybody whosoever says that Adam was created mortal and subject to death.

Some can say this is definite proof that the Catholic Church has anathematized Evolutionary theory. However, whose to say that this falls in the realm of "science" and not "Faith?," ergo, the Catholic Church erred in making such a statement?

Let's look at the Death Penalty - contradicting all of his predecessors, including Christ Himself (Who is dogmatically, according to the Roman Catholic Church and the infallible Scriptures, the Head of the Church), when He told Pilate that the authority to execute was given to him by God (John 19:8-11), the Pope has changed a document of the Ordinary Magisterium to say that the death penalty is inadmissible, in Light of the Gospel, because it violates the dignity of a human being.

Is this dogmatic change "infallible?" Or, as Xavier argues, "merely disciplinary and not a dogmatic change to the intrinsic morality of the death penalty," even though the language seems to indicate otherwise?

We hear the argument that the Pope has given his private opinion on Dogma, believing in Annihilationism in private inerviews. Is this infallible or not?

So, problem #1 (which you admit in your bolded section).

What is the extent of "morality" and "dogma?" These two topics are something that are intangible to the point that what exactly the Pope's range of infallibility is completely subjective, such that you can't actually use the Pope as an objective final epistemological source, because someone can easily say a judgment about dogma or morality falls out of the scope of his infallibility something something discipline something something science something something something.

As you said, the Pope made a definitive declaration and order, and this was just "legal status" and not "morality." Maybe the Pope didn't actually see it that way, after all, it could be a moral decision because of how people were treating this specific individual in terms of rumors, and thus it falls into the realm of a judgment on morality. However, you disagree, because you suddenly labeled this as not falling into the realms of infallibility.

And finally, if a Pope were to say something is immoral, and is therefore infallible, and it contradicts the past 1000 years of Popes who have taught the same thing consistently, with their infallibility, how would they all be wrong when they were infallible?

Which leads us into our next point, but for now, it's succinct to say that it must be the case that Popes bind future Popes, because if they didn't, they couldn't have a claim of Infallibility to begin with.

Quote
If so, that even precludes asking the question of whether he might be wrong.  Or are you making the converse argument that since the Pope was wrong, he must not have such authority.  If so, I'd like to ask how you know there are no contradictions in Scripture, despite the numerous ones documented by non-Christians.  Is it because you have submitted Scripture to your personal judgment and analysis and determined that the non-Christians are wrong and there are no contradictions, or is it because you a priori accept Divine inspiration of Scripture, which precludes the possibility of error?

I believe that morality must be objective and consistent in terms of baseline principles. How those baseline principles are expressed can be changed; people have pointed out the differences between Jesus refusing to stone the adultress, and the Old Testament commanding people to do exactly that - but the baselines principles don't change between the two. The Church teaches that adultery is a mortal sin worthy of eternal death.

There's a difference between Elisha commanding bears to eat "youths" (probably teenagers) and Christ saying "let the children come to me,", but the underlying base principle of respect for just authority doesn't change in these two scenarios.

As long as the underlying principles are consistent, I have no problem.

Kosher might of been abolished, but it doesn't mean that fasting is suddenly wrong. Fasting is completely moral and leads to Sanctification, which is what Kosher did for the Nation of Israel.

If morality in terms of baseline principles were to change infallibly according to God's own demands, He is nothing more than a vile tyrant whom we should follow the designs of Lucifer in warring against Him. He thus must subjectively condemn people to eternal fire based on when they were alive in ways that aren't equal or just. Jebediah over there is condemned to hell for masturbating once, but Mark lived in 2018 where it was okay, so enjoy the infinite light and pleasure of Heaven!

How would it be just or righteous that a man, as the Book of Revelation says, is sentenced to eternal fire and everlasting pain for worshiping the image of the Roman Emperor, but it is morally acceptable for me to worship Krishna out of Ecumenism?

The underlying principle of following the 1st Commandment of only worshiping God and God alone is throne out the window.

The same principle must necessarily apply for the Death Penalty. If the intrinsic morality (not just the discipline) is changeable, than morality isn't actually objective, and God is a cruel tyrant who condemns people willy nilly.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 05, 2019, 12:47:18 AM
Even the baseline principles between the time of Saint Benedict and now have changed. Saint Benedict was commended for breaking statues dedicated to the god Apollo and destroying a pagan temple, converting it to an Oratory for Saint John the Apostle.

However, even if Catholics today would see it immoral to break into a Hindu temple and smash statues of Ganesha and Krishna, steal the temple, and set up an oratory to Saint Benedict, the underlying principle of the 1st commandment wouldn't change.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 10, 2019, 02:23:03 AM
If you won't answer the question of how Pope Paul VI was able to be canonized, what about Pope John Paul II?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=CAQ27TPAkss
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 10, 2019, 09:55:58 AM
There are two things I am getting at, the first of which needs elaborating on.

What exactly is "Faith" and what exactly is "Morality" is in of itself broad due to the fact that these fields intersect with each other and others.

...


I believe that morality must be objective and consistent in terms of baseline principles...

The same principle must necessarily apply for the Death Penalty. If the intrinsic morality (not just the discipline) is changeable, than morality isn't actually objective, and God is a cruel tyrant who condemns people willy nilly.

If I you understand you correctly, what you are saying is:

1) Since we are the final epistemological authority on whether something really is a matter of faith or morals, it is meaningless to say the Pope is final epistemological authority on matters of faith or morals,

and

2) The intrinsic morality of the death penalty is changeable and has changed, according to Papal teaching.  Thus, either morality isn't actually objective or the Pope is not in fact the final epistemological authority.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The answer to 1) is that I deny the antecedent.  The Pope, and not we, is in fact the final epistemological authority on whether something actually is a matter of faith or morals.  In every case, however, he must show that he is exercising such authority (e.g. acting in such capacity) and not merely speaking as a private person giving his private opinions.

The answer to 2) is that I deny both the antecedent and the conclusion.  The baseline principles of morality don't logically entail such a thing as "intrinsic morality of the death penalty" (despite many thinking they do) - and, as such, the baseline principles of morality (which are, do good and avoid evil) can dictate different conclusions of the morality of the death penalty dependent on societal circumstances, without themselves changing.  Obviously it necessitates a different way of categorizing morality instead of simply "intrinsically good" or "intrinsically evil" - but maybe it's past time for this to happen, given the torturous justifications of moralists for some actions (such as killing in self-defense when attacked or removing a cancerous womb) under the "principle of double effect" while condemning other actions which seem similar (e.g. killing to prevent an imminent attack but not while it's actually occurring, abortion to save the mother's life) as "doing evil so that good may result".

Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 10, 2019, 10:54:56 AM
There are two things I am getting at, the first of which needs elaborating on.

What exactly is "Faith" and what exactly is "Morality" is in of itself broad due to the fact that these fields intersect with each other and others.

...


I believe that morality must be objective and consistent in terms of baseline principles...

The same principle must necessarily apply for the Death Penalty. If the intrinsic morality (not just the discipline) is changeable, than morality isn't actually objective, and God is a cruel tyrant who condemns people willy nilly.

If I you understand you correctly, what you are saying is:

1) Since we are the final epistemological authority on whether something really is a matter of faith or morals, it is meaningless to say the Pope is final epistemological authority on matters of faith or morals,

and

2) The intrinsic morality of the death penalty is changeable and has changed, according to Papal teaching.  Thus, either morality isn't actually objective or the Pope is not in fact the final epistemological authority.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The answer to 1) is that I deny the antecedent.  The Pope, and not we, is in fact the final epistemological authority on whether something actually is a matter of faith or morals.  In every case, however, he must show that he is exercising such authority (e.g. acting in such capacity) and not merely speaking as a private person giving his private opinions.

The answer to 2) is that I deny both the antecedent and the conclusion.  The baseline principles of morality don't logically entail such a thing as "intrinsic morality of the death penalty" (despite many thinking they do) - and, as such, the baseline principles of morality (which are, do good and avoid evil) can dictate different conclusions of the morality of the death penalty dependent on societal circumstances, without themselves changing.  Obviously it necessitates a different way of categorizing morality instead of simply "intrinsically good" or "intrinsically evil" - but maybe it's past time for this to happen, given the torturous justifications of moralists for some actions (such as killing in self-defense when attacked or removing a cancerous womb) under the "principle of double effect" while condemning other actions which seem similar (e.g. killing to prevent an imminent attack but not while it's actually occurring, abortion to save the mother's life) as "doing evil so that good may result".

I appreciate your effort in responding, which others haven't.

But yeah, that's what I'm saying.

As a response to each one,

1. Catholics - neither Liberal nor Traditionalist - actually follow this principle as you lay down. Many Liberals will argue that Pope John Paul II's decision to forbid female ordination wasn't Ex Cathedra, and many Traditionalists will argue that canonizations aren't infallible.

You also run into problems with Popes later annulling what was seemingly considered a matter of Faith and Morals by declarations of Popes who already declared something as such - Pope Saint Pius V wrote "Quo Primum", where he said this about the Tridentine Reforms put in place.

You can read the encyclical here:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure....

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. [Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing....

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

It's clear that Pope Pius V wanted the Tridentine alteration to be permanent, as he makes use of "Apostolic Authority" and forbids any changes to the missal whatsoever, saying nobody whomsoever is able to use a different missal unless the missal is older than 200 years, and whomsoever does so will incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul.


Yet, in Vatican II, Pope Paul VI completely ignored this decree, arguing that the Mass is something of mere discipline which the Pope can alter.

And then, Pope Francis claims that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II are magisterially irreformable -

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/24/pope-invokes-magisterial-authority-declare-liturgy-changes-irreversible/

so we have three Popes saying three different things about what rightly belongs to the authority of the Magisterium - that is, teaching authority on Faith and Morality. So who is right?

Finally, if the Pope is the ultimate authority which makes something a matter of Faith and Morality, then the Pope has no authority in virtue of the Pope arguing for Geocentrism as a matter of Faith and Morality at the time - something clearly wrong.

2. This is assuming that the death penalty change to the catechism was merely just disciplinary, which I could accept, but the Catechism says that the death penalty "was thought to be a legitimate means of authority", and that "in light of the Gospel, the death penalty is inadmissible because it violates the dignity of the human person, and therefore, the Church works for it's abolition worldwide.

If the Catechism outright just said "although in the past the death penalty was morally admissible, in current social circumstances given our developments in technology and imprisonment standards, the death penalty is no longer morally admissible, and the Church must advocate for it's abolition worldwide as such," I would have no problem with that. As I've said, I believe that the way baseline morality is interpreted can change - but here, Francis is implicitly and thus logically stating, as an act of magisterial authority, that the death penalty was never really moral to begin with despite people thinking so in the past, and that it's immoral because it violates the dignity of the human person -

and this is a very clear and logical contradiction that violates the baseline of morality, that states have authority from above to execute people (which, as I've pointed out, is what Christ Himself said).


The argument that it's just discipline that we must submit to seems to be an argument that - as far as I've seen (as nobody has really expounded upon how the literal words can refer to just discipline in that convincing of a manner) - tries to strawman, by not engaging with the material itself but coming to a necessary deduction to maintain an anticipated conclusion.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 10, 2019, 12:46:27 PM
1. Catholics - neither Liberal nor Traditionalist - actually follow this principle as you lay down. Many Liberals will argue that Pope John Paul II's decision to forbid female ordination wasn't Ex Cathedra, and many Traditionalists will argue that canonizations aren't infallible.

That's not an argument against the principle as such.  In fact, none of the things you say really are.  So do you admit the principle (that a Pope can be the final authority not only on faith or morals, but also on what precisely comes under the umbrella) is not in itself self-contradictory?

Because you're now switching to an argument from history, arguing that in fact Popes have in fact contradicted each other on faith and morals, or that Catholics don't follow the principle.  And the latter doesn't really prove anything.  Your first two historical examples are rather weak; the third is stronger.

Quote
You also run into problems with Popes later annulling what was seemingly considered a matter of Faith and Morals by declarations of Popes who already declared something as such - Pope Saint Pius V wrote "Quo Primum", where he said this about the Tridentine Reforms put in place.

St. Pius V did not say that it is a matter of faith or morals that the only licit form of worship is the Tridentine Mass (which would be total nonsense anyway given the different forms in the West as well what had been in the East before the schism), only that he was commanding it in the here-and-now.

Quote
And then, Pope Francis claims that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II are magisterially irreformable -

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/24/pope-invokes-magisterial-authority-declare-liturgy-changes-irreversible/

For future reference, please don't do argument by weblink.

What he meant was that the principles underlying the liturgical reform, and not every absolute detail, are what are irreversible.

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/what-pope-francis-meant-by-irreversible-liturgical-reform/

Quote
So when Pope Francis spoke about liturgical reform, he did not mean merely the external changes to the form of the Mass which occurred after Vatican II. By liturgy and liturgical reform, Pope Francis means just what he said: “the living presence of Christ; Christ is at the heart of the liturgical action” and “life through the whole people of God” and “an initiatory experience, a transformative experience that changes how we think and act.”

The controversial remark of Pope Francis was the following: “we can assert with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.” It is controversial because so many commentators assume that liturgical reform refers merely to the external, changeable points of liturgical form, such as the particular wording used for prayers, when to sit or stand or kneel, whether the priest faces the congregation or the altar, whether Communion is received in the hand or on the tongue, and similar points of discipline. But from the actual content of his talk, Pope Francis was clearly NOT saying that. Obviously, such elements are changeable.

Liturgy is not a leaf in the winds of change.
Liturgy is a boat on the ocean of doctrine.

What is “irreversible” is the type of reform that he described, where “Christ is the heart of the liturgical action” and the people live the liturgy, and it becomes a transformative experience. This aspect of the liturgy falls under doctrine, not discipline, and so it can be taught by the Magisterium, and it can be considered certain and irreformable.

He is right, as can be seen via reference to the full translation:

https://zenit.org/articles/vatican-iis-liturgy-a-school-of-prayer-full-translation/


Quote
Finally, if the Pope is the ultimate authority which makes something a matter of Faith and Morality, then the Pope has no authority in virtue of the Pope arguing for Geocentrism as a matter of Faith and Morality at the time - something clearly wrong.

This is stronger. There really aren't currently any satisfactory apologetic answers for the geocentrism issue, which I've repeatedly called the Waterloo of traditional Catholicism.  It certainly can't be defended as being only about science when the Church explicitly said otherwise (in a document by the Holy Office approved by the Pope).  The earth's motion was condemned as "at least erroneous in faith". 

Nevertheless, if the Pope is the final epistemological authority, there must be some possible reconciliation between what the Pope said in the Middle Ages, what the Popes say today, and the findings of science, even if we haven't found it yet.

You may disagree but again, I will say this puts you in the same boat as atheistics and agnostics who claim Scriptural contradictions both within itself and with findings of modern science, history, archaeology, etc.  How do you know they are wrong and there are no Scriptural contradictions or errors?  Because you have personally examined each and every one of them and convinced yourself beyond any doubt there is no contradiction or error?  And even if so, what grounds does that give you for concluding with certainty that none will be found in the future?  No, of course not; it's because you've a priori accepted Scripture as the Word of God and therefore, any claim of error or contradiction is a priori false, even if we haven't found as yet a good reconciliation internally or with other disciplines.

Quote
If the Catechism outright just said "although in the past the death penalty was morally admissible, in current social circumstances given our developments in technology and imprisonment standards, the death penalty is no longer morally admissible, and the Church must advocate for it's abolition worldwide as such," I would have no problem with that. As I've said, I believe that the way baseline morality is interpreted can change - but here, Francis is implicitly and thus logically stating, as an act of magisterial authority, that the death penalty was never really moral to begin with despite people thinking so in the past, and that it's immoral because it violates the dignity of the human person...

But that is what was said, according to the CDF document explicitly approved by the Pope:

Quote
2. It is in the same light that one should understand the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God. If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html


Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 10, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Okay, but I still can't overall see how one can say that they can go to Rome and find the True Faith. If I followed Pope Paul VI in his life, would I get to Heaven? If I followed John Paul II's life, would I get to Heaven?

The paradox is that the discipline and morality of the Roman Catholic Church up until 1963 was pretty consistent, and now there is a rejection of it's own history as immoral.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: Xavier on January 11, 2019, 01:00:27 AM
Find an SSPX or FSSP Parish (even ICK or D-TLM should be fine) and regularly assist at Holy Mass there, to grow in grace and sanctity, and see the fruits of the Holy Spirit be manifested in your lives, "charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, 5:23  Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law." (Gal 5). The other things will take care of themselves. Some days its more important to do what we need to do to save our souls. Sermons will be good and solid and give you all you need to attain mystical union (theosis) with Christ.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 11, 2019, 05:19:04 PM
Find an SSPX or FSSP Parish (even ICK or D-TLM should be fine) and regularly assist at Holy Mass there, to grow in grace and sanctity, and see the fruits of the Holy Spirit be manifested in your lives, "charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, 5:23  Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law." (Gal 5). The other things will take care of themselves. Some days its more important to do what we need to do to save our souls. Sermons will be good and solid and give you all you need to attain mystical union (theosis) with Christ.

It's sufficient to say the following:

During the time of the Acacian Schism, where the Eastern Churches compromised their faith, when the Roman legates visited the Church of Constantinople, they Roman legates were shocked to hear the name of Miaphysite bishops said in the Diptychs, and they were forced to receive Communion basically at gunpoint. When this happened, the Pope denounced the legates for doing such a thing (preferring heretical communion to possible death), and then proceeded to excommunicate the Church of Constantinople for heresy.

Now, while I think Pope Francis says some things which are absolutely beautiful and correct at points (indeed, imo he has said more things correct than I think a typical Traditional Catholic would admit) he is nonetheless way worse than the Miaphysite bishops ever were - especially when Miaphysite theology CAN be understood as Orthodox if there are details explaining away ambiguities - he promotes literal indifferentism, discourages "proselytism" as a sin against Ecumenism, participates and promotes scandalous liturgical abuses (not only in terms of the secularization of the Mass, but also the Charismatic movement), has canonized one of the worst Popes in history - a Pope whose explicit aim was to destroy Gregorian Chant in the Mass (see Paul VI, General Audience, November 26 1969) as a holy Saint, has waged war against traditional liturgical praxis, and has possibly said things in private that make Origen look like a Saint.

I have no intention to say this man is an orthodox Christian where I can obtain holiness from - I would rather commune with Peter Mongus and Acacius, because despite the fact that they were heretics, they didn't trample on the Natural Law or wage war against it.
Title: Re: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 11, 2019, 05:22:01 PM
If I ever returned to communion with Rome - in terms of being convinced of the Roman position (which quoting Matthew 16:18 or Church Fathers about Peter's connection to Rome won't be convincing for me, it will have to be something else) - it's not now. I'm about to finish college and would rather reside in a stable Church home (which I've found, despite the fact that I personally am unstable) as I finish it up and move on to a new phase of life, where I'll probably move to a new location in terms of Graduate School.