How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[Davis Blank - EG]

Yawn.  Awaiting discussion of how the same magically does not apply to divorce for the Orthodox or disagreements between its churches.

[TheReturnofLive]

If you want to talk Orthodox ecclesiology or divorce, open a new thread. Because I’m not here to smell red herrings.

[Heinrich]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[Kaesekopf]

I reject your first sentence, really. 

Your entire post is based on it. 

First principles, mate.

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

[TheReturnofLive]

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?”

[TheReturnofLive]

Or maybe even change it to the Magisterium

[Davis Blank - EG]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

Then when does the gates of hell prevail against the Church in accordance with Vatican I’s Ecclesiology?

[Prayerful]

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.

[Michael Wilson]

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.   

[TheReturnofLive]

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...

[Miriam_M]

Answer to thread title:
Because human history has not ended yet.  Therefore, the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed.