Author Topic: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?  (Read 2342 times)

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1272 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
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?
 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 12:45:04 AM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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.
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1272 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
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".

 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 11:03:49 AM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1272 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
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


 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 05:03:46 PM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Offline Xavier

  • Mary, Queen and Protectress of our Faith, protect our Faith from all the Satanic threats to it. Mary, Refuge of Holy Love, grant us final perseverance in Grace and Holy Love forever.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4121
  • Thanked: 3112 times
  • Indian Catholic
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Religion: Catholic Christian (Roman Rite Latin Traditionalist)
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.
Mary, our Heavenly Mother, implores those who receive Holy Communion Daily, or at least Weekly, to Offer their Lives. TEXT OF THE LIFE OFFERING, adapted and pluralized: Dear Lord Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, We hereby Offer our whole Lives to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with our life, we place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all our Holy Communions, all Rosaries, all acts of consecration, all our good deeds, all our sacrifices, and the suffering of our entire life for the Adoration and Supplication of the Holy Trinity, for Unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father, Pope Francis the First; and for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. For His Eminence Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, His Excellency Metropolitan Hilarion, as well as His Eminence Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, that they may re-unite their flocks with the Catholic Church, and there may soon be but One Fold and One Shepherd. For all the 220+ Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, for all 5500+ Bishops of the Universal Church that they may be true Apostles and Shepherds; and for the 400,000+ Priests, the 700,000+ Nuns, 50,000+ Monks, 100,000+ seminarians, that they may all become the Saints the Divine Will wishes them to be; we pray for good Priestly and Religious Vocations, and for All Souls until the end of the world. O my Jesus, please accept our life Sacrifice and our offerings and give us Your grace that we may all persevere obediently until death. Amen." https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/ Please pray this daily and you and your family will be saved. You will avoid Purgatory.

Daily Morning Offering: O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary,  I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the Altars  throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my every thought, word, and action of this day. I desire to gain every Indulgence and Merit I can, offering them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, Whom Thou hast appointed the dispenser of the merits of Thy Precious Blood, especially by means of this Scapular  [Here kiss your Brown Scapular] that She may best apply them to the interests of Thy Most Sacred Heart. Amen.

Consecration to Our Blessed Mother: My Queen, my Mother! I give myself entirely to Thee, and to show my devotion to Thee I consecrate to Thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve, Wherefore, good Mother, as I am Thine own, keep me, guard me, as Thy property and possession." http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/morning-offering.htm

"I am the Lady of the Rosary. Pray the Rosary (i.e. 15 decades; 5 decades is a part of the Rosary) every day to obtain Peace for the World." ~ Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima.
 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 05:29:41 PM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Online TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 05:30:08 PM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."