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

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[Miriam_M]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[Xavier]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.



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.

[Davis Blank - EG]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[Gerard]

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. 

[Davis Blank - EG]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

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.

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."

[TheReturnofLive]

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.

[Gardener]

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

[TheReturnofLive]

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?