OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: sedevacantist on March 09, 2013, 04:29:42 PM

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 09, 2013, 04:29:42 PM
Split from there (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15373.msg901475.html#msg901475) - MK.

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 09, 2013, 04:30:44 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: orthros on March 09, 2013, 04:54:17 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?

This is an interesting point.  Are there any pre-Vatican II saints in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 09, 2013, 04:58:39 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 09, 2013, 05:52:35 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 09, 2013, 05:53:58 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 09, 2013, 06:18:12 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 09, 2013, 06:19:50 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

How was that priest ordained, then?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 10, 2013, 12:59:00 AM
It's about to get rowdy up in here!
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 01:17:55 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 01:18:25 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

How was that priest ordained, then?
eastern rite
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 01:23:21 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 10, 2013, 01:26:52 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Be prepared. These guys are much better at this debate than your average Protestant.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 10, 2013, 01:36:33 AM
Be prepared. These guys are much better at this debate than your average Protestant.

Yes, its great to be armed with the truth ;)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 01:37:41 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 01:38:15 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Be prepared. These guys are much better at this debate than your average Protestant.
why, thank you.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Irish Melkite on March 10, 2013, 02:59:38 AM
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?

I don't mean to sound flippant  :angel: (ok, maybe I do  :-[ ) but, gee, that would be a new topic, never seen that addressed here  ::)

With all due respect, you do realize that you're posting on an Orthodox forum, don't you? And, yet, you seriously ask that question?   ???

Many years,

Neil
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 10, 2013, 04:11:50 AM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 10, 2013, 06:46:35 AM
So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???

I guess he isn't a donatist.

....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?

The Orthodox Church and its bishops :angel:
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 08:27:33 AM
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?

I don't mean to sound flippant  :angel: (ok, maybe I do  :-[ ) but, gee, that would be a new topic, never seen that addressed here  ::)

With all due respect, you do realize that you're posting on an Orthodox forum, don't you? And, yet, you seriously ask that question?   ???

Many years,

Neil
I meant on this  thread or some other, yes I'm serious.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 08:31:24 AM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 08:38:01 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
whats so silly?
in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, there have been more than 40 antipopes. An
antipope is a bishop who claims to be the pope, but was not canonically elected as Bishop of
Rome (i.e., supreme pontiff). Here is a list of the 42 antipopes that the Church had to contend
with before Vatican II:
1. St. Hippolytus (reconciled with Pope St. Pontian and died as martyr to the church),
217–235
2. Novatian, 251–258
3. Felix II (confused with a martyr with the same name and thus considered an authentic
pope until recently), 355–365
4. Ursicinus (Ursinus), 366–367
5. Eulalius, 418–419
6. Laurentius, 498–499, 501–506
7. Dioscorus (legitimate perhaps as opposed to Boniface II but died 22 days after
election), 530
8. Theodore (II) (opposed to antipope Paschal), 687
9. Paschal (I) (opposed to antipope Theodore), 687
10. Theofylact, 757
11. Constantine II, 767–768
12. Philip (replaced antipope Constantine II briefly; reigned for a day and then returned
to his monastery), 768
13. John VIII, 844
14. Anastasius III Bibliothecarius, 855
15. Christopher, 903–904
16. Boniface VII, 974, 984–985
17. John Filagatto (John XVI), 997–9
8. Gregory VI, 1012
19. Sylvester III, 1045
20. John Mincius (Benedict X), 1058–1059
21. Pietro Cadalus (Honorius II), 1061–1064
22. Guibert of Ravenna (Clement III), 1080 & 1084–1100
23. Theodoric, 1100–1101
24. Adalbert, 1101
25. Maginulf (Sylvester IV), 1105–1111
26. Maurice Burdanus (Gregory VIII), 1118–1121
27. Thebaldus Buccapecuc (Celestine II) (legitimate but submitted to opposing pope,
Honorius II, and afterwards considered an antipope), 1124
28. Pietro Pierleoni (Anacletus II), 1130–1138
29. Gregorio Conti (Victor IV), 1138
30. Ottavio di Montecelio (Victor IV), 1159–1164
31. Guido di Crema (Paschal III), 1164–1168
32. Giovanni of Struma (Callixtus III), 1168–1178
33. Lanzo of Sezza (Innocent III), 1179–1180
34. Pietro Rainalducci (Nicholas V), antipope in Rome, 1328–1330
35. Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), antipope of the Avignon line, 20 September 1378 – 16
September 1394
36. Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1394–1423
37. Pietro Philarghi Alexander V, antipope of the Pisan line, 1409–1410
38. Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII), antipope of the Pisan line, 1410–1415
39. Gil Sánchez Muñoz (Clement VIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1423–1429
40. Bernard Garnier (the first Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1425–c. 1429
41. Jean Carrier (the second Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1430–1437
42. Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy (Felix V), 5 November 1439 – 7 April 1449
(Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 08:44:09 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)


what were you on feb 27, do you believe Benedict is not a heretic? you are eastern catholic correct
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 08:46:26 AM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
http://assemblyofbishops.org/directories/bishops
http://oca.org/directories/world-churches
Quote
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.  Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, the successor of St. Peter, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 08:51:09 AM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
PopeSt. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
fixed that for you.

Your supreme pontiff Boniface VIII: "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

So, where's your "Roman Pontiff" now?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Keble on March 10, 2013, 09:24:52 AM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 10:08:17 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
whats so silly?
Because the bishop of Rome is just a bishop.  There's a canonical bishop at Rome (at present:
(http://www.doxologia.ro/sites/default/files/imagecache/imagine_600_width/articol/2012/07/ps_siluan_2.jpg)
Bishop Siluan), and there can be rivals-heretical bishops, schismatic bishops, pseudo-bishops, bishops who are pretenders to a see, etc.-like any other episcopal see, but not "anti-bishops."  Just like there were pseudo-Apostles, and Apostles, but no "anti-apostles."

in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, there have been more than 40 antipopes. An
antipope is a bishop who claims to be the pope, but was not canonically elected as Bishop of
Rome (i.e., supreme pontiff). Here is a list of the 42 antipopes that the Church had to contend
with before Vatican II:
You are aware that this list has been revised several times-post facto, of course-no?

You also have a problem with your definition, as your supreme pontiffs John XXIII (really XXIV-if you don't believe in him, his defining Pope John XXIII, your number 38 below, as "antipope" doesn't count.  Your supreme pontiffs, however, numbered #38 among the numbers in the Annuario Pontificio before), Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were canonically elected as Bishop of Rome (i.e. supreme pontiff) according to Pastor Aeternus.

Which is worse off for you: according to your supreme pontiff Pius XII's "Apostolic Constitution" "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis", only the conclave of cardinals can chose your supreme pontiff, and only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal.  All those "valid" (according to your beliefs) cardinals are now dead, and dead conclaves elect no "pope."

Is your conclave going to look like this?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII_1870.jpg)

1. St. Hippolytus (reconciled with Pope St. Pontian and died as martyr to the church),
217–235
2. Novatian, 251–258
3. Felix II (confused with a martyr with the same name and thus considered an authentic
pope until recently), 355–365
4. Ursicinus (Ursinus), 366–367
5. Eulalius, 418–419
6. Laurentius, 498–499, 501–506
7. Dioscorus (legitimate perhaps as opposed to Boniface II but died 22 days after
election), 530
8. Theodore (II) (opposed to antipope Paschal), 687
9. Paschal (I) (opposed to antipope Theodore), 687
10. Theofylact, 757
11. Constantine II, 767–768
12. Philip (replaced antipope Constantine II briefly; reigned for a day and then returned
to his monastery), 768
13. John VIII, 844
14. Anastasius III Bibliothecarius, 855
15. Christopher, 903–904
16. Boniface VII, 974, 984–985
17. John Filagatto (John XVI), 997–9
8. Gregory VI, 1012
19. Sylvester III, 1045
20. John Mincius (Benedict X), 1058–1059
21. Pietro Cadalus (Honorius II), 1061–1064
22. Guibert of Ravenna (Clement III), 1080 & 1084–1100
23. Theodoric, 1100–1101
24. Adalbert, 1101
25. Maginulf (Sylvester IV), 1105–1111
26. Maurice Burdanus (Gregory VIII), 1118–1121
27. Thebaldus Buccapecuc (Celestine II) (legitimate but submitted to opposing pope,
Honorius II, and afterwards considered an antipope), 1124
28. Pietro Pierleoni (Anacletus II), 1130–1138
29. Gregorio Conti (Victor IV), 1138
30. Ottavio di Montecelio (Victor IV), 1159–1164
31. Guido di Crema (Paschal III), 1164–1168
32. Giovanni of Struma (Callixtus III), 1168–1178
33. Lanzo of Sezza (Innocent III), 1179–1180
34. Pietro Rainalducci (Nicholas V), antipope in Rome, 1328–1330
35. Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), antipope of the Avignon line, 20 September 1378 – 16
September 1394
36. Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1394–1423
37. Pietro Philarghi Alexander V, antipope of the Pisan line, 1409–1410
38. Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII), antipope of the Pisan line, 1410–1415
39. Gil Sánchez Muñoz (Clement VIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1423–1429
40. Bernard Garnier (the first Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1425–c. 1429
41. Jean Carrier (the second Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1430–1437
42. Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy (Felix V), 5 November 1439 – 7 April 1449
(Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)
You forgot the last column in your source:

In opposition to
0 (you seem to have skipped one in your source, Natlius, c. 200). Zephyrinus
1. Callixtus I, Urban I, Pontian
2. Cornelius, Lucius I, Stephen I, Sixtus II
3. Liberius. "Confused with a martyr" i.e. saint. Doesn't inspire much confidence on this ability to sort out "popes" and "anti-popes"
4. Damasus I
5. Boniface I
6. Symmachus
7. Boniface I. Dioscoros was legitimate, Boniface was not.  You guys should be more sure about these things.
8.  Sergius I. Since he was "opposed to antipope Paschal", wouldn't that make him "anti-anti-pope," and therefore "pope"?
9.  Sergius I
10. Paul I
11. Stephen III
12. Stephen III
13. Sergius II
14. Benedict III
15. Between Leo V and Sergious III (so they can occur Sede vacans)
16. Between Benedict VI and Benedict VII, and between John XIV and John XV
17. Gregory V
18. Benedict VIII
19. Benedict IX.  Odd, as Sylvester the Annuario Pontificio lists him as a "supreme pontiff."
20. Nicholas II
21. Alexander II
22. Gregory VII, Victor II, Urban II, Paschal II
23. Paschal II
24. Paschal II
25. Paschal II
26. Paschal II, Gelasius II, Callixtus II
27. Honorius II
28. Innocent II
29. Innocent II
30. Alexander III
31. Alexander III
32. Alexander III
33. Alexander III
34. John XXII
35. Urban VI, Boniface IX
36. Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII, Martin V
37. Gregory XII
38. Gregory XII [although Martin V should be listed here too]
39. Martin V
40. Martin V
41. Eugen IV
42. Nicholas V

And of course, your continuation.
                                                                                      In opposition to
43. John XXIII/XXIV  1958-1963                                           the invisible man
44. Paul VI 1963-1978
45. John Paul I 1978 (reigned for 33 days)
46. John Paul II 1978-2005
47. Benedict XVI 2005-2013
48. ? (since the college of cardinals, according to you, has died out, any elected successor ipso facto would be an "anti-pope")

Gotta go to DL, and afterwards I'll be visiting, Lord willing, my best friend since High School (one run by the Resurrectionists). He's technically a sedevantist too, but only since the end of this last month.  Lord willing I'll be back.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 10:09:31 AM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

after all, an invisible supreme head needs an invisible church.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 10, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches that the Church is where the bishop is.  Sedes don't have a bishop.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 12:09:18 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 12:37:48 PM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches that the Church is where the bishop is.  Sedes don't have a bishop.
Our Lord Himself indicates that the size of the Church will become frighteningly small in the last
days.
Luke 18:8: “But yet, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on
earth?”
The Apocalypse of St. John seems to indicate the same.
Apocalypse 11:1-2:
“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and it was said to me: Arise, and
measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that adore in it. But the court, which
is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not, because it is given to the Gentiles...”
The Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, a popular compilation of Catholic commentary on
the Scriptures by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock, contains the following comment on Apoc. 11:1-2.
Catholic Commentary on Apoc. 11:1-2, Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
“The churches consecrated to the true God, are so much diminished in number, that
they are represented by St. John as one church; its ministers officiate at one altar; and
all the true faithful are so few, with respect to the bulk of mankind, that the evangelist
sees them assembled in one temple, to pay their adorations to the Most High. -
Pastorini.” 85
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught that there must always be a certain
number of bishops or faithful for the Church to exist. As long as there is at least one priest or
bishop and at least a few faithful, the Church and the hierarchy are alive and visible. Today there
is much more than a handful of faithful left who maintain the unchanging Catholic Faith.

If it’s true that there must be one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere (which is
something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it doesn’t change the fact that
Benedict XVI and his apostate bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy.
Against a fact there is no argument; against this fact there is no argument.

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 12:39:44 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D


48. ? (since the college of cardinals, according to you, has died out, any elected successor ipso facto would be an "anti-pope")


yes
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 01:31:14 PM


 ;D

W
[/quote]
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
[/quote]
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
[/quote]
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
[/quote]
whats so silly?[/quote]
Because the bishop of Rome is just a bishop.  There's a canonical bishop at Rome

[/quote]
of course we are in disagreement, so before we get to the church fathers lets start with the bible, I'm interested in your take of
 John 21:15-17,and also  is Peter the "rock"
for starters
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 10, 2013, 01:35:00 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 06:04:08 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church
So your are a headless ecclesial community protesting the present Vatican papacy.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 06:05:22 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D


48. ? (since the college of cardinals, according to you, has died out, any elected successor ipso facto would be an "anti-pope")


yes
then, according to Pastor Aeternus, you are pretty much S.O.L.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 10, 2013, 06:08:16 PM
But it doesn’t change the fact that
Benedict XVI and his apostate bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy.

But that doesn't prevent you from taking Eucharist from a priest ordained by them. If they aren't bishops how could they ordain anyone?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 06:13:00 PM

 ;D

W
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
whats so silly?
Because the bishop of Rome is just a bishop.  There's a canonical bishop at Rome

of course we are in disagreement, so before we get to the church fathers lets start with the bible, I'm interested in your take of
 John 21:15-17,and also  is Peter the "rock"
for starters
First, less smiling, more learning how to work the quote feature. ;D

John 21? I take it as St. John and the Fathers leave it: St. Peter denied Christ three times-the facts around which give the reason of why St. Peter is mentioned more times than the other Apostles in the Gospels-and here He gives St. Peter the opportunity to repent of it.  He failed his apostleship, was given a second chance, repented, and moved on.

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 06:13:39 PM
But it doesn’t change the fact that
Benedict XVI and his apostate bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy.

But that doesn't prevent you from taking Eucharist from a priest ordained by them. If they aren't bishops how could they ordain anyone?
It seems that our friend is more Protestant than he knows.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2013, 06:20:24 PM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches that the Church is where the bishop is.  Sedes don't have a bishop.
Our Lord Himself indicates that the size of the Church will become frighteningly small in the last
days.
Luke 18:8: “But yet, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on
earth?”
The Apocalypse of St. John seems to indicate the same.
Apocalypse 11:1-2:
“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and it was said to me: Arise, and
measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that adore in it. But the court, which
is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not, because it is given to the Gentiles...”
The Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, a popular compilation of Catholic commentary on
the Scriptures by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock, contains the following comment on Apoc. 11:1-2.
Catholic Commentary on Apoc. 11:1-2, Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
“The churches consecrated to the true God, are so much diminished in number, that
they are represented by St. John as one church; its ministers officiate at one altar; and
all the true faithful are so few, with respect to the bulk of mankind, that the evangelist
sees them assembled in one temple, to pay their adorations to the Most High. -
Pastorini.” 85
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught that there must always be a certain
number of bishops or faithful for the Church to exist. As long as there is at least one priest or
bishop and at least a few faithful, the Church and the hierarchy are alive and visible. Today there
is much more than a handful of faithful left who maintain the unchanging Catholic Faith.

If it’s true that there must be one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere (which is
something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it doesn’t change the fact that
Benedict XVI and his apostate bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy.
Against a fact there is no argument; against this fact there is no argument.
The Catholic Church does so teach that numbers do not count, but Vatican I added this supreme pontiff requirement, and it requires you have at least one of them.  You neither have one nor the means to get one, as your supreme pontiffs have required at least one cardinal to make a supreme pontiff, and only supreme pontiffs can make cardinals.  As your supreme pontiffs and cardinals are all dead, you can have millions of faithful and thousands of bishops and ten thousands of priests, and you still won't make the minimum requirement for your petite eglise.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 10, 2013, 07:43:45 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.

 ;D

What about the post-schism EO saints that are saints in the Roman Church as well? And aren't sedevacantists outside of the Church as well?
not sure about the saints, sedes are not outside the church since we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Be prepared. These guys are much better at this debate than your average Protestant.
why, thank you.
Not you Izzy.  ;D Never you.  :D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 08:33:36 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 10, 2013, 08:40:36 PM

[/quote]
First, less smiling, more learning how to work the quote feature. ;D

John 21? I take it as St. John and the Fathers leave it: St. Peter denied Christ three times-the facts around which give the reason of why St. Peter is mentioned more times than the other Apostles in the Gospels-and here He gives St. Peter the opportunity to repent of it.  He failed his apostleship, was given a second chance, repented, and moved on.


[/quote]
smile wasn't mine but yes I have to learn the quote thingy better..your explanation of the passage is inadequate, here's the truth
John 21:15-17

 

We see here , in John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep top St Peter. The dogmatic First Vatican Council of the catholic Church said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 10, 2013, 08:44:43 PM
if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope

But how can a Pope be a heretic?  A pope cannot be judged by anyone except God.  A pope can declare anything under the sun as dogma and no one can stop him from doing it (says so in Pastor Aeternus).
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 10, 2013, 09:14:11 PM

 ;D

W
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
whats so silly?
Because the bishop of Rome is just a bishop.  There's a canonical bishop at Rome

of course we are in disagreement, so before we get to the church fathers lets start with the bible, I'm interested in your take of
 John 21:15-17,and also  is Peter the "rock"
for starters
First, less smiling, more learning how to work the quote feature. ;D

Whatever may be done by smiling, you may rely on me to do.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 10, 2013, 09:15:34 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.

Alright, I guess that makes sense from your p.o.v.

Of course, many protestants could say that it makes sense, from their pov, to receive from a Catholic priest. However, that doesn't make it alright, from our (Catholic) pov, for the priest to give them or you communion.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 11, 2013, 05:53:30 AM
....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches that the Church is where the bishop is.  Sedes don't have a bishop.
Our Lord Himself indicates that the size of the Church will become frighteningly small in the last
days.
Luke 18:8: “But yet, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on
earth?”
The Apocalypse of St. John seems to indicate the same.
Apocalypse 11:1-2:
“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and it was said to me: Arise, and
measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that adore in it. But the court, which
is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not, because it is given to the Gentiles...”
The Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, a popular compilation of Catholic commentary on
the Scriptures by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock, contains the following comment on Apoc. 11:1-2.
Catholic Commentary on Apoc. 11:1-2, Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
“The churches consecrated to the true God, are so much diminished in number, that
they are represented by St. John as one church; its ministers officiate at one altar; and
all the true faithful are so few, with respect to the bulk of mankind, that the evangelist
sees them assembled in one temple, to pay their adorations to the Most High. -
Pastorini.” 85
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught that there must always be a certain
number of bishops or faithful for the Church to exist. As long as there is at least one priest or
bishop and at least a few faithful, the Church and the hierarchy are alive and visible. Today there
is much more than a handful of faithful left who maintain the unchanging Catholic Faith.

If it’s true that there must be one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere (which is
something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it doesn’t change the fact that
Benedict XVI and his apostate bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy.
Against a fact there is no argument; against this fact there is no argument.
The Catholic Church does so teach that numbers do not count, but Vatican I added this supreme pontiff requirement, and it requires you have at least one of them.  You neither have one nor the means to get one, as your supreme pontiffs have required at least one cardinal to make a supreme pontiff, and only supreme pontiffs can make cardinals.  As your supreme pontiffs and cardinals are all dead, you can have millions of faithful and thousands of bishops and ten thousands of priests, and you still won't make the minimum requirement for your petite eglise.

At last, sedevacantism is the vindication of the Orthodox position, since they no longer have any cardinal and as such can not have a Pope. If they claim they do not need the Pope, or can do without him, then we Orthodoxs can too. If they say we had no authority to judge a Pope, wich is false, then neither can they. Their position is self refuting.

In fact, sedes simply recognize the truth in St Gregory the Great statement, that if the universal head falls, then the whole body does. And so Sede have no bishop, no head, nothing.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 11, 2013, 06:01:30 AM
Quote


 ;D

W
They have been severed almost a millenium before "vatican 2".  Since you believe, I take it, in Vatican I, where is your Pastor Aeternus?
there have been many anti popes in history, it doesn't take away papal primacy...would you like to argue papal primacy here?
[/quote]
Here, or anywhere you would like.

But in the meantime, as for the silly notion of "anti-pope,"  I don't know of one that didn't have a "real" pope as his rival.  Something new?
[/quote]
whats so silly?[/quote]
Because the bishop of Rome is just a bishop.  There's a canonical bishop at Rome

[/quote]
of course we are in disagreement, so before we get to the church fathers lets start with the bible, I'm interested in your take of
 John 21:15-17,and also  is Peter the "rock"
for starters
[/quote][/quote]

Sede, when there were anti popes in history, Rome's trick is that there still was a valid Pope against him. now, since Vatican II, you claim there is no more valid Pope at all, only anti Popes. Since you have no cardinal, and no valid Pope, no Valid Bishop, where is the head of your Church, since you can not even have a new Pope.

If you don't have a pope, and can not have one in the future(Vatican I criteria), how can you argue about the necessity of a Pope of Rome with Vatican I powers? Your position is irational, since we, as orthodoxs, are not bound by Vatican I, but you are. Big contradiction, since we have bishops etc but you don't.

So before you start arguing about St Peter and so on, try to fix your position by your own church criterias.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 11, 2013, 06:06:13 AM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 11, 2013, 07:19:25 AM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 11, 2013, 11:48:07 AM
First, less smiling, more learning how to work the quote feature. ;D

John 21? I take it as St. John and the Fathers leave it: St. Peter denied Christ three times-the facts around which give the reason of why St. Peter is mentioned more times than the other Apostles in the Gospels-and here He gives St. Peter the opportunity to repent of it.  He failed his apostleship, was given a second chance, repented, and moved on.


smile wasn't mine
Oh? Looks like you
;D
Perhaps the Cheshire cat is perched on your empty seat.

but yes I have to learn the quote thingy better.
Yes, as you prove below trying to quote Scripture's meaning.

your explanation
not mine, the Fathers'.

of the passage is inadequate
the start of much heresy comes in trying to improve on the Church.

here's the truth
Quote
Basil: And what kind of advantage have I derived from this piece of good management, or wise policy, or whatever you may please to call it, so as to persuade me that I have not been deceived by you?

Chrysostom: What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? John 21:15-17 For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, Peter, do you love me? and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, if you love me tend my sheep. The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. For when we see any one bestowing care upon members of our household, or upon our flocks, we count his zeal for them as a sign of love towards ourselves: yet all these things are to be bought for money:— with how great a gift then will He requite those who tend the flock which He purchased, not with money, nor anything of that kind, but by His own death, giving his own blood as the price of the herd. Wherefore when the disciple said, You know Lord that I love You, and invoked the beloved one Himself as a witness of his love, the Saviour did not stop there, but added that which was the token of love. For He did not at that time wish to show how much Peter loved Him, but how much He Himself loved His own Church, and he desired to teach Peter and all of us that we also should bestow much zeal upon the same. For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. Naturally then did Christ say, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord shall make ruler over His household. Again, the words are those of one who is in doubt, yet the speaker did not utter them in doubt, but just as He asked Peter whether he loved Him, not from any need to learn the affection of the disciple, but from a desire to show the exceeding depth of his own love: so now also when He says, Who then is the faithful and wise servant? he speaks not as being ignorant who is faithful and wise, but as desiring to set forth the rarity of such a character, and the greatness of this office. Observe at any rate how great the reward is— He will appoint him, he says, ruler over all his goods. Matthew 24:47

2. Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, Peter, do you love me more than these? Yet He might have said to him, If you love me practise fasting, sleeping on the ground, and prolonged vigils, defend the wronged, be as a father to orphans, and supply the place of a husband to their mother. But as a matter of fact, setting aside all these things, what does He say? Tend my sheep. For those things which I have already mentioned might easily be performed by many even of those who are under authority, women as well as men; but when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also; and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others, and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature: or rather far more. 1 Samuel 10:23 For in this case let me not take the height of shoulders as the standard of inquiry; but let the distinction between the pastor and his charge be as great as that between rational man and irrational creatures, not to say even greater, inasmuch as the risk is concerned with things of far greater importance. He indeed who has lost sheep, either through the ravages of wolves, or the attacks of robbers, or through murrain, or any other disaster befalling them, might perhaps obtain some indulgence from the owner of the flock; and even if the latter should demand satisfaction the penalty would be only a matter of money: but he who has human beings entrusted to him, the rational flock of Christ, incurs a penalty in the first place for the loss of the sheep, which goes beyond material things and touches his own life: and in the second place he has to carry on a far greater and more difficult contest. For he has not to contend with wolves, nor to dread robbers, nor to consider how he may avert pestilence from the flock. With whom then has he to fight? With whom has he to wrestle? Listen to the words of St. Paul. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 Do you see the terrible multitude of enemies, and their fierce squadrons, not steel clad, but endued with a nature which is of itself an equivalent for a complete suit of armor. Would you see yet another host, stern and cruel, beleaguering this flock? This also you shall behold from the same post of observation. For he who has discoursed to us concerning the others, points out these enemies also to us, speaking in a certain place on this wise: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults, 2 Corinthians 12:20 and many more besides; for he did not make a complete list, but left us to understand the rest from these. Moreover, in the case of the shepherd of irrational creatures, those who wish to destroy the flock, when they see the guardian take to flight, cease making war upon him, and are contented with the seizure of the cattle: but in this case, even should they capture the whole flock, they do not leave the shepherd unmolested, but attack him all the more, and wax bolder, ceasing not until they have either overthrown him, or have themselves been vanquished. Again, the afflictions of sheep are manifest, whether it be famine, or pestilence, or wounds, or whatsoever else it may be which distresses them, and this might help not a little towards the relief of those who are oppressed in these ways. And there is yet another fact greater than this which facilitates release from this kind of infirmity. And what is that? The shepherds with great authority compel the sheep to receive the remedy when they do not willingly submit to it. For it is easy to bind them when cautery or cutting is required, and to keep them inside the fold for a long time, whenever it is expedient, and to bring them one kind of food instead of another, and to cut them off from their supplies of water, and all other things which the shepherds may decide to be conducive to their health they perform with great ease.

3. But in the case of human infirmities, it is not easy in the first place for a man to discern them, for no man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 How then can any one apply the remedy for the disease of which he does not know the character, often indeed being unable to understand it even should he happen to sicken with it himself? And even when it becomes manifest, it causes him yet more trouble: for it is not possible to doctor all men with the same authority with which the shepherd treats his sheep. For in this case also it is necessary to bind and to restrain from food, and to use cautery or the knife: but the reception of the treatment depends on the will of the patient, not of him who applies the remedy. For this also was perceived by that wonderful man (St. Paul) when he said to the Corinthians— Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy. 2 Corinthians 1:24 For Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great, and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices: but in our case the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. For neither has authority of this kind for the restraint of sinners been given us by law, nor, if it had been given, should we have any field for the exercise of our power, inasmuch as God rewards those who abstain from evil by their own choice, not of necessity. Consequently much skill is required that our patients may be induced to submit willingly to the treatment prescribed by the physicians, and not only this, but that they may be grateful also for the cure. For if any one when he is bound becomes restive (which it is in his power to be), he makes the mischief worse; and if he should pay no heed to the words which cut like steel, he inflicts another wound by means of this contempt, and the intention to heal only becomes the occasion of a worse disorder. For it is not possible for any one to cure a man by compulsion against his will.

4. What then is one to do? For if you deal too gently with him who needs a severe application of the knife, and do not strike deep into one who requires such treatment, you remove one part of the sore but leave the other: and if on the other hand you make the requisite incision unsparingly, the patient, driven to desperation by his sufferings, will often fling everything away at once, both the remedy and the bandage, and throw himself down headlong, breaking the yoke and bursting the band. I could tell of many who have run into extreme evils because the due penalty of their sins was exacted. For we ought not, in applying punishment, merely to proportion it to the scale of the offense, but rather to keep in view the disposition of the sinner, lest while wishing to mend what is torn, you make the rent worse, and in your zealous endeavors to restore what is fallen, you make the ruin greater. For weak and careless characters, addicted for the most part to the pleasures of the world, and having occasion to be proud on account of birth and position, may yet, if gently and gradually brought to repent of their errors, be delivered, partially at least, if not perfectly, from the evils by which they are possessed: but if any one were to inflict the discipline all at once, he would deprive them of this slight chance of amendment. For when once the soul has been forced to put off shame it lapses into a callous condition, and neither yields to kindly words nor bends to threats, nor is susceptible of gratitude, but becomes far worse than that city which the prophet reproached, saying, you had the face of a harlot, refusing to be ashamed before all men. Jeremiah 3:3 Therefore the pastor has need of much discretion, and of a myriad eyes to observe on every side the habit of the soul. For as many are uplifted to pride, and then sink into despair of their salvation, from inability to endure severe remedies, so are there some, who from paying no penalty equivalent to their sins, fall into negligence, and become far worse, and are impelled to greater sins. It behooves the priest therefore to leave none of these things unexamined, but, after a thorough inquiry into all of them, to apply such remedies as he has appositely to each case, lest his zeal prove to be in vain. And not in this matter only, but also in the work of knitting together the severed members of the Church, one can see that he has much to do. For the pastor of sheep has his flock following him, wherever he may lead them: and if any should stray out of the straight path, and, deserting the good pasture, feed in unproductive or rugged places, a loud shout suffices to collect them and bring back to the fold those who have been parted from it: but if a human being wanders away from the right faith, great exertion, perseverance and patience are required; for he cannot be dragged back by force, nor constrained by fear, but must be led back by persuasion to the truth from which he originally swerved. The pastor therefore ought to be of a noble spirit, so as not to despond, or to despair of the salvation of wanderers from the fold, but continually to reason with himself and say, Peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil. 2 Timothy 2:25 Therefore the Lord, when addressing His disciples, said, Who then is the faithful and wise servant? Matthew 24:45 For he indeed who disciplines himself compasses only his own advantage, but the benefit of the pastoral function extends to the whole people. And one who dispenses money to the needy, or otherwise succors the oppressed, benefits his neighbors to some extent, but so much less than the priest in proportion as the body is inferior to the soul. Rightly therefore did the Lord say that zeal for the flock was a token of love for Himself.

Basil: But you yourself— do you not love Christ?

Chrysostom: Yea, I love Him, and shall never cease loving Him; but I fear lest I should provoke Him whom I love.

Basil: But what riddle can there be more obscure than this— Christ has commanded him who loves Him to tend His sheep, and yet you say that you decline to tend them because you love Him who gave this command?

Chrysostom: My saying is no riddle, but very intelligible and simple, for if I were well qualified to administer this office, as Christ desired it, and then shunned it, my remark might be open to doubt, but since the infirmity of my spirit renders me useless for this ministry, why does my saying deserve to be called in question? For I fear lest if I took the flock in hand when it was in good condition and well nourished, and then wasted it through my unskilfulness, I should provoke against myself the God who so loved the flock as to give Himself up for their salvation and ransom.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/19222.htm
St. John Chrysostom wrote this "On the Priesthood" when he was not in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome, for Bishop Basil of Raphnea, a suffragan of a Metropolitan in the Patriarchate of Antioch, St. Peter's first see.  A pseudo-patriarch of Antioch, Paulinus, was in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome when this was written, but neither St. John, Bp. Basil, the true Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, who opened the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I-the same which the Orthodox Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, corrupted by your supreme pontiffs to their fall, not the Church's-also were in communion/obedience to the archbishop of Old Rome.  Btw, the pseudo-patriarchs of Antioch-all four lines of them-that your supreme pontiff in 1958 claimed had jurisdiction in Antioch, all claimed their lineage through Patriarch St. Meletius.  Paulinus (who ordained St. Jerome) was quite forgotten, his line dying out although Old Rome supported him and his successor.

Here's the truth: "this office, as Christ desired it" means the Orthodox episcopate of the Catholic Church, applied to even the suffragan of a metropolitan to the Patriarch third down in the diptychs.  Pastor Aeternus errors in arrogating it to one bishop at the top of the diptychs to make him a "supreme pontiff."

As for your quote thing, plagerized from here (or someplace similar):
http://www.traditionalcatholic.info/pope/
(or are you the author there?):

John 21:15-17

We see here , in John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep top St Peter. The dogmatic First Vatican Council of the catholic Church

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't have a Vatican Council, dogmatic or otherwise.  The Vatican has not only a first council, but a second one as well.  At least, the supreme pontiff, according to "the dogmatic First Vatican Council" and those empowered to make a supreme pontiff in 1958 said so in 1962.

said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:
Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.

And, the problem that John 21 deals with St. Peter's denial and his repentance therefrom, to confess his love for Christ once denied:
Quote
So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.
1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says unto him, Feed My sheep.
And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knows the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betakes himself to Him.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.
St. John the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom must have not gotten the memo, because the only thing they have to say about young and old
Quote
When you were young, you girded yourself, and walked whither you would, but when you are old, others shall gird you, and carry you whither you will not.
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He has revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, I will lay down my life for You John 13:37, and, Though I should die with You, yet will I not deny You Matthew 26:35: He has given him back his desire. What then is the, Whither you will not? He speaks of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, whither you will not, is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, When you were young, does He again say, When you are old? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age. ) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongs to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; but in Mine, He says, not so; but when old age has come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life. This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declares the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, Be of good cheer, He says, I will so satisfy your desire, that, what you suffered not when young, you must suffer when you are old. Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added,

As to an alleged distinction between clergy and the Faithful:
Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 11, 2013, 02:04:30 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?

Well, no.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 11, 2013, 02:07:07 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 11, 2013, 02:10:13 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D

But the same bull said that only those subject to the Roman Pontiff are saved.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 11, 2013, 02:11:01 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D

But the same bull said that only those subject to the Roman Pontiff are saved.

The same bull said that the Pope was the head of the Church. A ridiculous notion, of course.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 11, 2013, 02:13:36 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D

But the same bull said that only those subject to the Roman Pontiff are saved.

The same bull said that the Pope was the head of the Church. A ridiculous notion, of course.

Although the word "head" has been used by the Orthodox to describe the bishops.  Of course in RC ecclesiology it bears a different meaning because all are subject to this one head, whereas in Orthodoxy all the heads are equal, meaning they are not to be confused with the headship of Christ.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 11, 2013, 02:31:42 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D
The bishop should not be the head of the diocese. Christ should. The priest should not be the head of the parish, Christ should.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 11, 2013, 02:44:22 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D
The bishop should not be the head of the diocese. Christ should. The priest should not be the head of the parish, Christ should.

I remember that not too long ago I said the same myself  :)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 11, 2013, 04:00:36 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D
The bishop should not be the head of the diocese. Christ should. The priest should not be the head of the parish, Christ should.

I remember that not too long ago I said the same myself  :)
Truth is truth.  :D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 11, 2013, 06:56:45 PM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 11, 2013, 07:12:04 PM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Good to see you here Stanley. :)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 11, 2013, 07:43:46 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D

I knew there was something I liked about Unam Sanctum. :)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 11, 2013, 08:28:43 PM



of the passage is inadequate
the start of much heresy comes in trying to improve on the Church.


As for your quote thing, plagerized from here (or someplace similar):
http://www.traditionalcatholic.info/pope/
(or are you the author there?):

I'm not the author, I am a truth seeker, the info I post is not mine, and I never said it was ,it is what I believe to be the truth.

John 21:15-17

We see here , in John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep top St Peter. The dogmatic First Vatican Council of the catholic Church

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't have a Vatican Council, dogmatic or otherwise. 

yes it does


 The Vatican has not only a first council, but a second one as well. 

The 2nd council is from the counterfeit church, not the The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church , in 1958 a freemason was put in as pope.


 

said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:
Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm


The power to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to Peter, your error is implying Jesus giving the keys to Peter is the same thing as

I
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.



Ah, a little problem with your theory is that John 20:22 the power of the keys were not given to all the apostles, the power to forgive sins was given to all the apostles. The Catholic Church doesn't teach the pope is the only one to forgive sins..

 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.





That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
[/quote]
When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.
[/quote]
you think you can dismiss
John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”
which is a direct order from Christ to St Peter to rule the church  with
 Acts 20: 28 Paul telling the bishops to rule the church??
thanks for confirming that Jesus told St Peter to rule his flock
 you have to do better than that.
equating Jesus giving the keys to the kingdom with  John 20:22 is another failure on your part to understanding scripture


sorry


 


Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 11, 2013, 08:37:45 PM
sedevacantist, if you're going to quote someone, you should make it clear what the quotation is and what your own words are.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 11, 2013, 08:40:57 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense , I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism

Answer: The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417). Here is a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great
Western Schism:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three
claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all
through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of
the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There
was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of
Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his
genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been
Answers to Objections
309
impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means
manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” 37
Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the entire period of
the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His
Church. The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking about began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory
XI and ended essentially in 1417 when Pope Martin V was elected. That would be a 39-year
interregnum (period without a pope). And Fr. O’Reilly was one of the most eminent theologians
of the 19th Century.
It’s obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting the Vatican II antipopes, hold
the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See. In fact, on page 287 of his book, Fr.
O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of
expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing
happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not
be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies
might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the
perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased
by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the
true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly
ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has
been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently
hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on
what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His
promises... We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound
Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption
for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past.
But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see
stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of
that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am
not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no
knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church,
not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible,
just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” 38
This is an excellent point. Fr. O’Reilly explains that if the Great Western Schism had never
occurred, Catholics would say that such a situation (three competing claimants to the Papacy
with no thoroughly ascertained head for decades) is impossible – just like those today who say
the sedevacantist “thesis” is impossible, even though the facts prove that it is true.
The Great Western Schism did happen, Fr. O’Reilly says, and we have no guarantee that worse
things, that are not excluded by divine promises, won’t happen. There is nothing contrary to
indefectibility in saying that we haven’t had a pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
There is everything contrary to the indefectibility of the Catholic Church in asserting that true
popes could promulgate Vatican II, officially endorse false and pagan religions, promulgate
the Protestant New Mass, and hold that non-Catholics don’t need to convert for salvation.
Leaving the Church without a pope for an extended period of the Great Apostasy is the
punishment inflicted by God on our generation for the wickedness of the world.
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the
majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink

deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously
exalted in the sight of all doubters.” 39


Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 11, 2013, 08:44:26 PM
sedevacantist, if you're going to quote someone, you should make it clear what the quotation is and what your own words are.
I'm not good when there are so many quotes to make things clear, I tried to remove certain passages as it was too long but afterwards I see it didn't come out right...
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 11, 2013, 08:47:45 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.

Alright, I guess that makes sense from your p.o.v.

Of course, many protestants could say that it makes sense, from their pov, to receive from a Catholic priest. However, that doesn't make it alright, from our (Catholic) pov, for the priest to give them or you communion.
just so I'm clear, you are an eastern catholic and you attend the byzantine liturgy..do you consider the post vatican 2 popes to be catholic?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 11, 2013, 08:49:42 PM
if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope

But how can a Pope be a heretic?  A pope cannot be judged by anyone except God.  A pope can declare anything under the sun as dogma and no one can stop him from doing it (says so in Pastor Aeternus).
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”1
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 11, 2013, 08:59:21 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D
no need to say goodbye as I never said hello to you, and you don' know what you are talking about
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 11, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense , I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism

Answer: The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417).

I think you're going to be Isa's new best friend.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 11, 2013, 09:18:01 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.

Alright, I guess that makes sense from your p.o.v.

Of course, many protestants could say that it makes sense, from their pov, to receive from a Catholic priest. However, that doesn't make it alright, from our (Catholic) pov, for the priest to give them or you communion.
just so I'm clear, you are an eastern catholic and you attend the byzantine liturgy..do you consider the post vatican 2 popes to be catholic?

If you mean Popes Michael I, Linus II, Pius XIII, etc than no.
If you mean Popes JXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, and BXVI than yes.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: podkarpatska on March 11, 2013, 09:28:56 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense , I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism

Answer: The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417).

I think you're going to be Isa's new best friend.

Doppelganger perhaps?  :D

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 11, 2013, 10:33:33 PM
....you don' know what you are talking about
Does anyone on this thread or, more generally, in either the R. Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church today know what they are talking about (except for you of course).
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: LBK on March 11, 2013, 10:35:22 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense , I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism

Answer: The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417).

I think you're going to be Isa's new best friend.

Doppelganger perhaps? :D



Only if he starts breaking out the maps.  ;) ;D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: username! on March 11, 2013, 10:47:14 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense , I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism

Answer: The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417).

I think you're going to be Isa's new best friend.

Doppelganger perhaps? :D



Only if he starts breaking out the maps.  ;) ;D

reaching into the memory vault, but show me a map of Rusynia or Carpathia lol, that's an old joke a few of us posters used to tease about years ago.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Again with the head covering.  Have you tried Islam?

And have you been around a Russian/Ukrainian Church?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
Doppelganger? Like this?

http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/thumb/c/c5/Doppelganger442px.jpg/406px-Doppelganger442px.jpg (http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/thumb/c/c5/Doppelganger442px.jpg/406px-Doppelganger442px.jpg)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D

I knew there was something I liked about Unam Sanctum. :)
Its heresy.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope

But how can a Pope be a heretic?  A pope cannot be judged by anyone except God.  A pope can declare anything under the sun as dogma and no one can stop him from doing it (says so in Pastor Aeternus).
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”1
who are you to judge?

"The Dictates of the Pope...That he himself may be judged by no one." Dictatus Papae (Pope Gregory VII of Rome)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp

"The pope may be judged by no one, even if he should deny the faith, as is seen from [Pope] Marcellinus." Propriae auctoritates apostolicae sedis (Pope Gregory VII of Rome)

"Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2]" Unam Sanctam (Pope Boniface VIII of Rome).

"Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff....Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable." Pastor Aeternus (Pope Pius IX of Rome).

You have no competence to judge your supreme pontiff, so your declarations of his heresy are, by your principles, a nullity.

Btw, your source: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf

Of course, we Orthodox know that your supreme pontiffs can be a notorious heretic: they have been at least since 1017.

So, when did Pope John XXIII/XXIV become a notorious heretic according to you?  Given that he was validly elected according to your supreme pontiff Pius XII.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM



of the passage is inadequate
the start of much heresy comes in trying to improve on the Church.


As for your quote thing, plagerized from here (or someplace similar):
http://www.traditionalcatholic.info/pope/
(or are you the author there?):

I'm not the author, I am a truth seeker, the info I post is not mine, and I never said it was ,it is what I believe to be the truth.

John 21:15-17

We see here , in John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep top St Peter. The dogmatic First Vatican Council of the catholic Church

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't have a Vatican Council, dogmatic or otherwise. 

yes it does


 The Vatican has not only a first council, but a second one as well. 

The 2nd council is from the counterfeit church, not the The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church , in 1958 a freemason was put in as pope.


 

said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:
Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm


The power to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to Peter, your error is implying Jesus giving the keys to Peter is the same thing as

I
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.



Ah, a little problem with your theory is that John 20:22 the power of the keys were not given to all the apostles, the power to forgive sins was given to all the apostles. The Catholic Church doesn't teach the pope is the only one to forgive sins..

 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.





That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.
[/quote]
you think you can dismiss
John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”
which is a direct order from Christ to St Peter to rule the church  with
 Acts 20: 28 Paul telling the bishops to rule the church??
thanks for confirming that Jesus told St Peter to rule his flock
 you have to do better than that.
equating Jesus giving the keys to the kingdom with  John 20:22 is another failure on your part to understanding scripture


sorry


 



[/quote]
I don't have the time to edit your post.

sorry
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense
Yes, your position is.
I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy
That's a non-topic, as Orthodoxy=Catholicism.
but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism
you brought it up.
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.
Answer
Your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
btw, starts off in error (and continues in that vein):
Quote
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553
Pope Vigilius refused to attend the Second Council of Constantinople, which was held over his express objection, the Council also striking his name from the diptychs for his opposition.
The Church has existed for years without a pope
Yes, almost 2,000 years as a matter of fact.

But as for the Vatican:
and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Length of the "interregnum" isn't your problem.  Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it.  You'd have the same problem if the ceiling fell in on the funeral of your supreme pontiff Pius XII and killed all the cardinals just few days into your "interregnum." If that happened and Card.s József Mindszenty and Aloysius Stepinac were left, you'd be OK (at least until Card. Mindszenty died in 1975).

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417).

you might call him an "eminent theologian" but he's obviously a lousy historian: the problem of the Great Schism was too many "fonts of unity," not the lack of one.

Here is a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great
Western Schism:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three
claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all
through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of
the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There
was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of
Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his
genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been
Answers to Objections
309
impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means
manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” 37
Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the entire period of
the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His
Church. The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking about began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory
XI and ended essentially in 1417 when Pope Martin V was elected. That would be a 39-year
interregnum (period without a pope). And Fr. O’Reilly was one of the most eminent theologians
of the 19th Century.
It’s obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting the Vatican II antipopes

LOL. Only Card. Pedro Martínez de Luna y Pérez de Gotor remained from before 1378 past 1417, and he was elected your "anti-pope" #36 in 1394.  By the time of the council of Constance, he was the only one left from the college of cardinals of 1378.

Seems that "eminent theologian" wasn't on the side of those who reject the Vatican I anti-popes.

hold
the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See. In fact, on page 287 of his book, Fr.
O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of
expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing
happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not
be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies
might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the
perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased
by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the
true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly
ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has
been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently
hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on
what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His
promises... We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound
Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption
for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past.
But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see
stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of
that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am
not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no
knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church,
not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible,
just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” 38
too bad (for you that is; in truth good, because it exposes the folly of Pastor Aeternus) he never presented the hyposthesis of what happens when not only does Ultramontanism wander about "without a thoroughly ascertained Head," but utterly without the means to ascertain one.
This is an excellent point. Fr. O’Reilly explains that if the Great Western Schism had never
occurred, Catholics would say that such a situation (three competing claimants to the Papacy
with no thoroughly ascertained head for decades) is impossible –
Au contraire, we say that such a situation is most likely, pride being what it is.
just like those today who say
the sedevacantist “thesis” is impossible, even though the facts prove that it is true.
The Great Western Schism did happen, Fr. O’Reilly says, and we have no guarantee that worse
things, that are not excluded by divine promises, won’t happen.
The extinction of your papacy and its cardinalate has already happened.
There is nothing contrary to
indefectibility in saying that we haven’t had a pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
You have the problem that you can't have any others now since then.
There is everything contrary to the indefectibility of the Catholic Church in asserting that true
popes could promulgate Vatican II, officially endorse false and pagan religions, promulgate
the Protestant New Mass, and hold that non-Catholics don’t need to convert for salvation.
well a tree is known by its fruit.  And who planted those seedlings Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli and Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini in your college of cardinals?

Leaving the Church without a pope for an extended period of the Great Apostasy is the
punishment inflicted by God on our generation for the wickedness of the world.
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the
majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink

deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously
exalted in the sight of all doubters.” 39
If you could put the cardinals of 1958 on life support or freeze them through kryogenics, you'd have a way out.  But they those dry bones won't live and give you a pope.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM
From sedevacantist's source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Quote
That what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) remains the perpetual principle and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND WHEN THERE IS NO POPE, is proven every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic (who is a sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t accept what Christ instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not accepting what the successors of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history (the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example of how the Office of the Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle of visible unity, distinguishing the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the false). This is true when there is no pope, and for the sedevacantist today. This dogmatic teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a pope and it is not contrary to the sedevacantist thesis in any way
"schismatic" LOL.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DvlWo60SGRg/SLew0RgXKiI/AAAAAAAABEU/SaRhFHfd3fg/s400/cartoon.jpg)(http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/the-blind-leading-the-blind.jpg)
I wonder what "Eastern Schismatic" is foolish enough to embrace sedevantism.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 12, 2013, 06:44:45 AM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D

That Christ is the head does not mean there is another head derived from him, just like Christ being the Rock does not mean Peter is not. And i dont need unam sanctam, i'm not rc but orthodox.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 12, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

we haven't had a true pope since 1958, how can I be protestant if I believe in the papacy, if pope is a heretic he ceases to be head of the church

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  :D

The Pope didn't cease to be the head of the Church, he was never the head to begin with. "Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)". And the post-schism Papal Bull Unam Sanctam confessed: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster."

 ;D
The bishop should not be the head of the diocese. Christ should. The priest should not be the head of the parish, Christ should.

I remember that not too long ago I said the same myself  :)
Truth is truth.  :D

It's always harder to argue against your own arguments  :D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 12, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
I wonder what "Eastern Schismatic" is foolish enough to embrace sedevantism.

Maybe Old Believers?  I know of an ultra-trad SSPXer whom I asked if he is interested in Orthodoxy.  Briefly "flirted" with it but he wanted to become an Old Believer.  I guess such a mentality runs in the blood.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: podkarpatska on March 12, 2013, 02:24:42 PM
From sedevacantist's source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Quote
That what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) remains the perpetual principle and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND WHEN THERE IS NO POPE, is proven every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic (who is a sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t accept what Christ instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not accepting what the successors of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history (the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example of how the Office of the Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle of visible unity, distinguishing the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the false). This is true when there is no pope, and for the sedevacantist today. This dogmatic teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a pope and it is not contrary to the sedevacantist thesis in any way
"schismatic" LOL.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DvlWo60SGRg/SLew0RgXKiI/AAAAAAAABEU/SaRhFHfd3fg/s400/cartoon.jpg)(http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/the-blind-leading-the-blind.jpg)
I wonder what "Eastern Schismatic" is foolish enough to embrace sedevantism.


Just reading a couple of pages of that pdf is enough to make your head spin. It's akin to reading a commentary on the Federal Tax Code.....
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: John Larocque on March 12, 2013, 02:37:43 PM
The sacramental life of sedevacantists...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery

Quote
As none of their members were ordained into the priesthood, and as they believe that the New Mass is invalid and that the Tridentine Mass (promoted by Benedict XVI) is compromised by the 1962 Missal changes made by John XXIII, they receive the sacraments from a Byzantine rite Catholic Church that is in communion with the Vatican, in Rochester, New York. During these occasions they wear layman's clothes in lieu of their Benedictine habits. Peter Dimond wrote: "In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I've received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces."
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: podkarpatska on March 12, 2013, 02:45:03 PM
 That group has two (2) members per Wikipedia.  ??? Why do we care what they think?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 12, 2013, 08:54:32 PM
Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?
 if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
so are you saying Benedict is not a heretic?
He is: he believes in Pastor Aeternus, the IC and the dogmatic definitions of the council of Trent (not all of which are heretical, but some are).

So, Pastor Aeternus says that a heretic can not be your supreme pontiff.  And yet those empowered by your supreme pontiff to make his successor chose a heretic, according to your definition, and then died off.

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
nonsense
Yes, your position is.
I'd like to stick to the topic which is catholicism vs orthodoxy
That's a non-topic, as Orthodoxy=Catholicism.
but since you insist on talking about sedevacantism
you brought it up.
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here. My belief is not popular as I believe the   eastern orthodox are outside the church and will sadly go to hell for this, also novus order catholics will sadly perish. I'm not here to offend anyone but would like to discuss issues.
Answer
Your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
btw, starts off in error (and continues in that vein):
Quote
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553
Pope Vigilius refused to attend the Second Council of Constantinople, which was held over his express objection, the Council also striking his name from the diptychs for his opposition.
The Church has existed for years without a pope
Yes, almost 2,000 years as a matter of fact.

But as for the Vatican:
and does so every time a pope dies.
The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different
times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was
between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than
three and a half years. 36 Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades
without a pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN
ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A
POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A
POPE
Length of the "interregnum" isn't your problem.  Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it.  You'd have the same problem if the ceiling fell in on the funeral of your supreme pontiff Pius XII and killed all the cardinals just few days into your "interregnum." If that happened and Card.s József Mindszenty and Aloysius Stepinac were left, you'd be OK (at least until Card. Mindszenty died in 1975).

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.
Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that
God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417).

you might call him an "eminent theologian" but he's obviously a lousy historian: the problem of the Great Schism was too many "fonts of unity," not the lack of one.

Here is a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great
Western Schism:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three
claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all
through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of
the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There
was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of
Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his
genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been
Answers to Objections
309
impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means
manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” 37
Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the entire period of
the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His
Church. The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking about began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory
XI and ended essentially in 1417 when Pope Martin V was elected. That would be a 39-year
interregnum (period without a pope). And Fr. O’Reilly was one of the most eminent theologians
of the 19th Century.
It’s obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting the Vatican II antipopes

LOL. Only Card. Pedro Martínez de Luna y Pérez de Gotor remained from before 1378 past 1417, and he was elected your "anti-pope" #36 in 1394.  By the time of the council of Constance, he was the only one left from the college of cardinals of 1378.

Seems that "eminent theologian" wasn't on the side of those who reject the Vatican I anti-popes.

hold
the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See. In fact, on page 287 of his book, Fr.
O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of
expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing
happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not
be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies
might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the
perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased
by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the
true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly
ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has
been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently
hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on
what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His
promises... We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound
Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption
for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past.
But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see
stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of
that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am
not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no
knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church,
not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible,
just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” 38
too bad (for you that is; in truth good, because it exposes the folly of Pastor Aeternus) he never presented the hyposthesis of what happens when not only does Ultramontanism wander about "without a thoroughly ascertained Head," but utterly without the means to ascertain one.
This is an excellent point. Fr. O’Reilly explains that if the Great Western Schism had never
occurred, Catholics would say that such a situation (three competing claimants to the Papacy
with no thoroughly ascertained head for decades) is impossible –
Au contraire, we say that such a situation is most likely, pride being what it is.
just like those today who say
the sedevacantist “thesis” is impossible, even though the facts prove that it is true.
The Great Western Schism did happen, Fr. O’Reilly says, and we have no guarantee that worse
things, that are not excluded by divine promises, won’t happen.
The extinction of your papacy and its cardinalate has already happened.
There is nothing contrary to
indefectibility in saying that we haven’t had a pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
You have the problem that you can't have any others now since then.
There is everything contrary to the indefectibility of the Catholic Church in asserting that true
popes could promulgate Vatican II, officially endorse false and pagan religions, promulgate
the Protestant New Mass, and hold that non-Catholics don’t need to convert for salvation.
well a tree is known by its fruit.  And who planted those seedlings Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli and Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini in your college of cardinals?

Leaving the Church without a pope for an extended period of the Great Apostasy is the
punishment inflicted by God on our generation for the wickedness of the world.
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the
majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink

deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously
exalted in the sight of all doubters.” 39
If you could put the cardinals of 1958 on life support or freeze them through kryogenics, you'd have a way out.  But they those dry bones won't live and give you a pope.
Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed, Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”


Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 12, 2013, 09:01:37 PM
I'd like to know from other Orthodox if they truly believe Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to all the apostles as argued here in John 20:22.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

or do you acknowledge that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to St Peter alone

Mat 1616-19
"And I say also unto thee,That thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

also I would like to know if you  acknowledge that  Peter is the Rock or not
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 12, 2013, 09:07:17 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.

Alright, I guess that makes sense from your p.o.v.

Of course, many protestants could say that it makes sense, from their pov, to receive from a Catholic priest. However, that doesn't make it alright, from our (Catholic) pov, for the priest to give them or you communion.
just so I'm clear, you are an eastern catholic and you attend the byzantine liturgy..do you consider the post vatican 2 popes to be catholic?

If you mean Popes Michael I, Linus II, Pius XIII, etc than no.
If you mean Popes JXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, and BXVI than yes.
The evidence that all the popes since 1958 were heretics is overwhelming, I'll leave you with this

Are you aware that Benedict XVI praises Luther, and that he has agreed with Luther on the heresy of justification by faith alone?  Are you aware that Benedict XVI teaches that Protestants (e.g., the followers of Luther) are inside the Church of Christ, and that such a position is heretical?  Are you aware that Benedict XVI engages in condemned interfaith worship with the followers of Luther, and that such an activity has always been forbidden by Catholic teaching?

also John 23 kissing the koran and praying with leaders of false religions in Assisi should be enough to make you look into it more
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 12, 2013, 09:15:16 PM
....you don' know what you are talking about
Does anyone on this thread or, more generally, in either the R. Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church today know what they are talking about (except for you of course).
I wasn't impressed with his goodbye so I lashed out, but the majority of so called christians  today don't have a clue that they are headed for hell, myself included a couple of years ago, so sadly most don't know what they are talking about

Saint Anselm: “If thou wouldst be certain of being in the number of the elect, strive to be one of the few, not of the many.  And if thou wouldst be quite sure of thy salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few… Do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or by night, that they may attain everlasting blessedness.” (Fr. Martin Von Cochem, The Four Last Things, p. 221.)

“Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing.  ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’  ‘Of the war that is going to come.  So many people are going to die.  And almost all of them are going to Hell.’” (Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94; p. 92 in some versions)
Saint Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751],

on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’  Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone.  Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned."  The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 12, 2013, 09:17:37 PM
That group has two (2) members per Wikipedia.  ??? Why do we care what they think?
You better worry about your salvation and try to prove their info wrong and stop worrying about wikipedia.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: orthros on March 12, 2013, 09:31:54 PM
Actually, the quote talking about the Eastern Fathers is interesting.  Is it true that the Eastern Fathers saw the world as a mass of damnation with only very few individuals saved?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 12, 2013, 09:57:37 PM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Again with the head covering.  Have you tried Islam?

And have you been around a Russian/Ukrainian Church?
Does this imply that the Orthodox are not that united when it comes to following tradition. One group, the Russian and the Ukrainians follow the 2000 year old tradition of having women cover their heads while praying in Church, whereas some American Orthodox do not. Who is correct?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 12, 2013, 10:00:49 PM
....you don' know what you are talking about
Does anyone on this thread or, more generally, in either the R. Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church today know what they are talking about (except for you of course).
I wasn't impressed with his goodbye so I lashed out, but the majority of so called christians  today don't have a clue that they are headed for hell, myself included a couple of years ago, so sadly most don't know what they are talking about

Saint Anselm: “If thou wouldst be certain of being in the number of the elect, strive to be one of the few, not of the many.  And if thou wouldst be quite sure of thy salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few… Do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or by night, that they may attain everlasting blessedness.” (Fr. Martin Von Cochem, The Four Last Things, p. 221.)

“Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing.  ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’  ‘Of the war that is going to come.  So many people are going to die.  And almost all of them are going to Hell.’” (Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94; p. 92 in some versions)
Saint Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751],

on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’  Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone.  Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned."  The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."
You seem to think that the Dimond brothers know what they are talking about. Very few people today, including sedevacantists such as SSPV,  believe as Father Feeney did.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Maria on March 12, 2013, 10:01:07 PM
Actually, the quote talking about the Eastern Fathers is interesting.  Is it true that the Eastern Fathers saw the world as a mass of damnation with only very few individuals saved?

I have read in several books, including the biography of St. Seraphim of Sarov by Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, may his memory be eternal, that few will be saved.

There is this recent account from the lives of the saints:

IF ONE LIVES ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF LOVE
Quote
A certain pious widow had a dream: “I saw, as it were, batiushka Lavrentii of Chernigov in the Trinity Convent, with its inhabitants. There were many sisters there, and the choir was chanting: “Rejoice, O Tsaritsa”. Then, suddenly, the starets rose up in the air, but there were only a few matushki (mother nuns) with him seven or eight total! I ran to ask him: “Why had so few nuns risen up?”, but upon uttering these words, I awoke, without having received an answer.”

”When I went to see Fr. Lavrentii, he said: “It is as you dreamed it! Had they lived in accordance with the Law of Love, then everything would have been fine. If someone has a piece of bread, it is in order that he might share it with another, who would then offer up a prayer for him. Thus, both would receive their largesse, and all would have been saved! But, with us, it is just the opposite: the one who has the piece of bread stirs up great rows. That is why there are so few who are lifted up, because there is no love!”

http://www.pigizois.net/agglika/starets/01.htm
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 12, 2013, 10:04:47 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Maria on March 12, 2013, 10:06:57 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Indeed, they sound very protestantized.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 13, 2013, 04:20:46 AM
I'd like to know from other Orthodox if they truly believe Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to all the apostles as argued here in John 20:22.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

or do you acknowledge that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to St Peter alone

Mat 1616-19
"And I say also unto thee,That thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

also I would like to know if you  acknowledge that  Peter is the Rock or not

 Saint Jerome: "Elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike" - Epistle 146.1

Augustine: "He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven" - City of God

Augustine: "How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." - Homilies on John 1


For the Rock, yes Peter is the Rock. But not only the Bishop of Rome is Peter successor, since st John Chrysostom called St Flavian of Constantinople "Peter". And st Gregory the Great said there are 3 petrine sees, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 13, 2013, 04:25:05 AM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Again with the head covering.  Have you tried Islam?

And have you been around a Russian/Ukrainian Church?
Does this imply that the Orthodox are not that united when it comes to following tradition. One group, the Russian and the Ukrainians follow the 2000 year old tradition of having women cover their heads while praying in Church, whereas some American Orthodox do not. Who is correct?

It is not only russians or ukrainians but also romanians etc. And his point was simply to tell you that head covering is not an important issue. So let it go.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 13, 2013, 05:06:19 AM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 13, 2013, 06:20:24 AM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.

Alright, I guess that makes sense from your p.o.v.

Of course, many protestants could say that it makes sense, from their pov, to receive from a Catholic priest. However, that doesn't make it alright, from our (Catholic) pov, for the priest to give them or you communion.
just so I'm clear, you are an eastern catholic and you attend the byzantine liturgy..do you consider the post vatican 2 popes to be catholic?

If you mean Popes Michael I, Linus II, Pius XIII, etc than no.
If you mean Popes JXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, and BXVI than yes.
The evidence that all the popes since 1958 were heretics is overwhelming, I'll leave you with this

Are you aware that Benedict XVI praises Luther, and that he has agreed with Luther on the heresy of justification by faith alone?  Are you aware that Benedict XVI teaches that Protestants (e.g., the followers of Luther) are inside the Church of Christ, and that such a position is heretical?  Are you aware that Benedict XVI engages in condemned interfaith worship with the followers of Luther, and that such an activity has always been forbidden by Catholic teaching?

Well Benedict XVI doesn't agree with heresy, but I don't deny that he is ecumenical-minded. Unlike the Orthodox posters on this forum, I don't consider ecumenism to be evil.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 13, 2013, 06:21:20 AM
also John 23 kissing the koran

No, but John Paul II did.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: erimos on March 13, 2013, 08:30:09 AM


Well Benedict XVI doesn't agree with heresy, but I don't deny that he is ecumenical-minded. Unlike the Orthodox posters on this forum, I don't consider ecumenism to be evil.
[/quote]

Two points: 1) All Orthodox Christians are also Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and being truly Catholic they profess the Ecumenical Synods and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as recorded in the Nicene Creed; and 2) Orthodox Christians do not think Ecumenism is evil, but they do not have to accept the "innovations" of he Church in Rome as being acceptable. These innovations are regarded by the Church Fathers as heresies, such as St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, did.

In other words, do not belittle Orthodox Christians with emotive one-liners.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 13, 2013, 12:07:51 PM
Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII
postdicted, more like it.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed

Suppressed? It's still said. I used to say the short form with my sons, although at the time I didn't know its original.  I got some Arabic translations from the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Btw, your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.
Sure enough. Our Lord said "I will be with you always, all the days, even to the end of the Age." So I don't have to worry about a demise like yours happening to His Church.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”
happened in 1017.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 13, 2013, 12:07:51 PM
Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself. Wondering if any others like me here.

No, I'd venture to say that I'm very different. (Although I am technically a sedevacantist since Feb 28.)

Hi, I'm new to this thread, I'm a sedevacantist Catholic, just started attending a ukranian catholic mass as I feel it's my only option to get a good confession and communion. The mass is said in a language which I don't understand which doesn't matter as I simply pray by myself.

Why?
because while the communion is valid the priest is still a heretic since he believes Benedict is a true pope...which ofcourse he is not

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  ???
yes, during this apostasy I have no choice, it is allowed to recieve communion from a heretic as long as he's not a notorious heretic.

Alright, I guess that makes sense from your p.o.v.

Of course, many protestants could say that it makes sense, from their pov, to receive from a Catholic priest. However, that doesn't make it alright, from our (Catholic) pov, for the priest to give them or you communion.
just so I'm clear, you are an eastern catholic and you attend the byzantine liturgy..do you consider the post vatican 2 popes to be catholic?

If you mean Popes Michael I, Linus II, Pius XIII, etc than no.
If you mean Popes JXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, and BXVI than yes.
The evidence that all the popes since 1958 were heretics is overwhelming, I'll leave you with this

Are you aware that Benedict XVI praises Luther, and that he has agreed with Luther on the heresy of justification by faith alone?  Are you aware that Benedict XVI teaches that Protestants (e.g., the followers of Luther) are inside the Church of Christ, and that such a position is heretical?  Are you aware that Benedict XVI engages in condemned interfaith worship with the followers of Luther, and that such an activity has always been forbidden by Catholic teaching?

also John 23 kissing the koran and praying with leaders of false religions in Assisi should be enough to make you look into it more
Get your "anti-popes" straight.
(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/08/john_paul_ii_quran.jpg)(http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_a/A031_Assisi01_LeMonRel_MayJun2005.jpg)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 13, 2013, 12:11:18 PM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Again with the head covering.  Have you tried Islam?

And have you been around a Russian/Ukrainian Church?
Does this imply that the Orthodox are not that united when it comes to following tradition. One group, the Russian and the Ukrainians follow the 2000 year old tradition of having women cover their heads while praying in Church, whereas some American Orthodox do not. Who is correct?
We only worry about Tradition.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 13, 2013, 12:11:18 PM


Well Benedict XVI doesn't agree with heresy, but I don't deny that he is ecumenical-minded. Unlike the Orthodox posters on this forum, I don't consider ecumenism to be evil.

Two points: 1) All Orthodox Christians are also Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and being truly Catholic they profess the Ecumenical Synods and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as recorded in the Nicene Creed; and 2) Orthodox Christians do not think Ecumenism is evil, but they do not have to accept the "innovations" of he Church in Rome as being acceptable. These innovations are regarded by the Church Fathers as heresies, such as St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, did.

In other words, do not belittle Orthodox Christians with emotive one-liners.
[/quote]
This post is just a bowl of sunshine.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 13, 2013, 05:45:31 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 13, 2013, 05:51:30 PM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Again with the head covering.  Have you tried Islam?

And have you been around a Russian/Ukrainian Church?
Does this imply that the Orthodox are not that united when it comes to following tradition. One group, the Russian and the Ukrainians follow the 2000 year old tradition of having women cover their heads while praying in Church, whereas some American Orthodox do not. Who is correct?
We only worry about Tradition.
My Bible says you should worry about tradition: "But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."- II Thessalonians 3:6
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: podkarpatska on March 13, 2013, 07:53:05 PM
Truth is truth.  :D
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Again with the head covering.  Have you tried Islam?

And have you been around a Russian/Ukrainian Church?
Does this imply that the Orthodox are not that united when it comes to following tradition. One group, the Russian and the Ukrainians follow the 2000 year old tradition of having women cover their heads while praying in Church, whereas some American Orthodox do not. Who is correct?
We only worry about Tradition.
My Bible says you should worry about tradition: "But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."- II Thessalonians 3:6

My favorite nugget regarding the subject?  "Tradition is the living faith of the dead, while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” -Jaroslav Pelikan. Plenty of well meaning Orthodox and Catholics alike fall under the siren spell of devotion to traditionalism.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: erimos on March 13, 2013, 07:59:02 PM
Quote
This post is just a bowl of sunshine.

You are bowl of sunshine, you make me happy every day!
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 13, 2013, 08:00:50 PM
Does this imply that the Orthodox are not that united when it comes to following tradition. One group, the Russian and the Ukrainians follow the 2000 year old tradition of having women cover their heads while praying in Church, whereas some American Orthodox do not. Who is correct?

Headcoverings have no effect on one's salvation.  One who covers her head can be humble as much as the next lady who covers her head and be self-righteous.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 13, 2013, 08:26:53 PM
I'd like to know from other Orthodox if they truly believe Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to all the apostles as argued here in John 20:22.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

or do you acknowledge that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to St Peter alone

Mat 1616-19
"And I say also unto thee,That thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

also I would like to know if you  acknowledge that  Peter is the Rock or not

 Saint Jerome: "Elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike" - Epistle 146.1

Augustine: "He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven" - City of God

Augustine: "How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." - Homilies on John 1


For the Rock, yes Peter is the Rock. But not only the Bishop of Rome is Peter successor, since st John Chrysostom called St Flavian of Constantinople "Peter". And st Gregory the Great said there are 3 petrine sees, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine in several places tells us that Peter received the keys as representing the Church — e.g. Tractate 1 on the Gospel of John, no. 12: "Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to Peter alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. Tractate 124 on the Gospel of John, no. 5; Sermon 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, "De statu eccl.", 1:76), however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely personal gift to Peter alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is expressly reprobated in the Vatican Decree, cap. 1.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 13, 2013, 08:30:32 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 13, 2013, 08:35:22 PM
Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII
postdicted, more like it.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed

Suppressed? It's still said. I used to say the short form with my sons, although at the time I didn't know its original.  I got some Arabic translations from the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Btw, your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.
Sure enough. Our Lord said "I will be with you always, all the days, even to the end of the Age." So I don't have to worry about a demise like yours happening to His Church.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”
happened in 1017.
so our Lady of LaSalette was lying? how about fatima, was that true or not? and when did I say Our Lord said He wouldn't be with us always?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 13, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 13, 2013, 08:41:52 PM
Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII
postdicted, more like it.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed

Suppressed? It's still said. I used to say the short form with my sons, although at the time I didn't know its original.  I got some Arabic translations from the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Btw, your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.
Sure enough. Our Lord said "I will be with you always, all the days, even to the end of the Age." So I don't have to worry about a demise like yours happening to His Church.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”
happened in 1017.
so our Lady of LaSalette was lying? how about fatima, was that true or not? and when did I say Our Lord said He wouldn't be with us always?
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 13, 2013, 08:45:15 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 13, 2013, 09:38:07 PM
so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not,

Hmmm ... I'm pretty sure you mean Orthodoxy. (Presumably it is obvious to you that orthodoxy is in the church.)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 13, 2013, 10:56:29 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.
No I didn't know that. I believe that what you say is false.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 13, 2013, 11:04:31 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
Can Pope Francis be saved? :)
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 13, 2013, 11:04:31 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
Haha. I'm a traditionalist and I don't worry myself with private revelations.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 13, 2013, 11:04:31 PM
I'd like to know from other Orthodox if they truly believe Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to all the apostles as argued here in John 20:22.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

or do you acknowledge that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to St Peter alone

Mat 1616-19
"And I say also unto thee,That thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

also I would like to know if you  acknowledge that  Peter is the Rock or not

 Saint Jerome: "Elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike" - Epistle 146.1

Augustine: "He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven" - City of God

Augustine: "How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." - Homilies on John 1


For the Rock, yes Peter is the Rock. But not only the Bishop of Rome is Peter successor, since st John Chrysostom called St Flavian of Constantinople "Peter". And st Gregory the Great said there are 3 petrine sees, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine in several places tells us that Peter received the keys as representing the Church — e.g. Tractate 1 on the Gospel of John, no. 12: "Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to Peter alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. Tractate 124 on the Gospel of John, no. 5; Sermon 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful.
St. Augustine is teaching what the Church teaches.
The right to forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people.
Doesn't sound like St. Augustine, nor the Catholic Church.
The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, "De statu eccl.", 1:76), however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely personal gift to Peter alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is expressly reprobated in the Vatican Decree, cap. 1.
The Vatican degree is not part of patristic tradition, and has no bearing on the topic.

So you are saying St. Augustine wasn't Catholic?  That the Catholic Church isn't Catholic?

To a headless Ultramontanist, I guess it makes sense.

Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
"Thou are Peter and upon this rock...."

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America's
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.


Let's look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:


1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers


2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers


3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers


4....That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.


Archbishop Kenrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?


And you should remember that 65 of the bishops gathered
at the First Vatican Council REFUSED to vote for the
proposed dogma of papal infallibility. Were they
also blockheads? Wouldn't one say that IF the doctrine
had been so normal and accepted in the Catholic Church
in the centuries prior to Vatican I that there would
never have been such a solid block of resisting bishops
who refused to vote for it in 1869.
This was only 133 years ago, quite recently.

You can check these facts in several major Catholic writings...

"How the Pope Became Infallible" by August Bernhard Hasler.
"Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry" by Hans Kung.

They say that at the opening of Vatican I only 50 bishops
were in favour of Pope Pius IX's desire to have the Popes
declared infallible. 130 of the bishops had declared
beforehand that they were against Papal Infallibility,
and the rest of the bishops, 620 were undecided.

I have secrhed the Net a few times to try and find the actual Fathers on whom he based his statistics but have never found anything.   Anybody have any knowledge of this?
Many years! Irish Hermit!
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 14, 2013, 10:46:48 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 14, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII
postdicted, more like it.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed

Suppressed? It's still said. I used to say the short form with my sons, although at the time I didn't know its original.  I got some Arabic translations from the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Btw, your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.
Sure enough. Our Lord said "I will be with you always, all the days, even to the end of the Age." So I don't have to worry about a demise like yours happening to His Church.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”
happened in 1017.
so our Lady of LaSalette was lying? how about fatima, was that true or not? and when did I say Our Lord said He wouldn't be with us always?
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.
do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 14, 2013, 10:55:28 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 14, 2013, 11:03:06 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

True or not, you shouldn't be treating it as doctrine or dogma.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 14, 2013, 11:04:28 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?



think for a moment how absurd it would be if Jesus were not saying that Peter is the rock...Jesus pronounces Peter alone is blessed.
"And Jesus answered and said unto hi, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona.."
(Matt 16:17)
Jesus changes only Peter's name.
"And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt 16:18)
Jesus gathers His disciples and gives the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone. He then gives to Peter alone the power to bind and loose.
"and Iwill give unto thee (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in haven..." (Matt 16:19)
But when he's talking about the rock, even though the statment is in the midst of all of these others to Peter alone, Protestants would have us believe that Jesus is not talking about Peter but about Himself or something else.It's ridiculous. It's so obviously false that argumentation really shouldn't be necessary.
Further it should be b pointed out that Jesus, while referring to Peter, says "upon this rock, I will build my Church," rather than upon you, is because while Peter is definitely the rock, the office He is establishing in Peter (the papacy) will endure through the ages well after Peter is gone. It's funded upon Peter, but will continue to exist after Peter is gone. It's an institution in Peter, but will not be limited to Peter. He will have successors.
The fathers believed that Peter is the rock
Tertullian, On Montgamy, 213 AD, refers to Peter and speaks of the Church, "built upon him.."(The faith of the early fathers, vol 1:381)
other examples of St Cyril of Alexandria (370-444), St Basil the Great (330-379 AD)...and others.




Matthew 16:16-19,

" That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

the keys by brother Dimond

Most people don`t know that this reference to the keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and to Peter`s binding and loosing with them)  comes from Isaias chapter 22. Jesus` words to Peter in Matthew 16 are a reference to the function of the prime minister of the Kingdom in the Old Testament.

 

Isaias 22;22 "And the key of the house of David will i lay upon his shoulder, so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

 

 


Notice the language clearly parallels Matthew 16:19. In the Old Testament God established a covenant with David in order to establish a Kingdom. The Davidic Monarchy,the Kingdom of God on earth,was meant to be  a prototype of the Kingdom of God which Jesus Christ would establish. That's why Jesus is called the son of David in the Gospels. It's also why Matthew's Gospel has kingdom as one of it's primary themes. It's also why Peter himself says in Acts 2;30 that Jesus sits upon David's throne. Luke 1:32 says the following of Jesus: "He shall be great,ad shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father..."

 

 


Jesus sits upon the throne of David. But Jesus' Kingdom is a spiritual one; His Kingdom is His Church. Jesus' Kingdom not only fulfills, bu surpasses the prototype, David's Kingdom. The point here is that Jesus' Kingdom is set up along similar lines.
Jesus was clearly making St Peter His Prime Minister

 

 


In David's Kingdom there was not only a king who ruled all the people, but the king had a royal cabinet. The king had royal ministers or chief officers. You see references to this royal cabinet in 2 Samuel 8. You also see areference to them in 1 Kings 4 and in other places. In this royal cabinet,there was a minister of defense, ministers in commerce, provisions, etc.

 

 

 

In David`s Kingdom there was not only a king who ruled all the people, but the king had a royal cabinet. The king had a royal cabinet . The king had royal ministers or chief officers. You see references to this royal cabinet (these chief officers or royal ministers of the king) in 2 Samuel 8 (2 Kings 8 in the Douay-Rheims Cathholic bible) You also see a reference to them in 1 Kings 4 (3 Kings 4 in  the Douay-Rheims Cathholic bible) and in other places. In this royal cabinet, there was a minister of defense, ministers in commerce, provisions, etc.

However,of all the king's ministers,there was one who stood out with authority above the rest. That was the prime minister, who was over the king's house. That's where the fascinatin truth of Isaias 22 becomes relevant to Matthew 16.

In Isaias 22 we read the prime minister HAD THE KEY to the house of David. Let me repeat that: the prime minister had the key to the house of David. This key represented the prime minister's authority over the house of the king.
Isaias 22: 20-22- "And it shall come to pass in that day,that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strenghten him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut, and none shall open."

 

 


Notice that the primeminister had the key of the house of David. We also see that to him was committed "the government," and that he would be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

In Isaias 22 the prime minister of the Kingdom was a man named Shebna. In Isaias 22: 15 says Shebna was "over the house"- that is, he was over the house of the king. Then Shebna left the office of prime minister and was replaced by a man named Eliakim. Then we read that the key of the kingdom, which Shebna had, was given to Eliakim by King Hezekiah ( the successor of David who was reigning as the king at the time). King Hezekiah gave the key of the Kingdom to Eliakim because Eliakim succeeded Shebna in the office of prime minister.

Eliakim now had the key to the house of David. By the fact that he had the key, everyone would recognize Eliakim as the king's prime minister.

Think about the striking similarity to Matthew 16. in Isaias 22:22, we see the clear reference to the key of the Kingdom being passed, just as Jesus gives the keys to St Peter. In addition, the statement that with the key "he shall open,and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" is srikingly similar to what Jesus says to St Peter in Matthew 16:19, when He gives him the keys to His kingdom: "whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose upon earth shall be loosed also in Heaven."
The significance of this should be very obvious

Jesus sits upon the throne of David. So when Jesus comes to establish His Kingdom (His Church), which is the fulfillment of the Kingdom of David,He likewise appoints His royal cabinet: His Apostles. But of those royalministers (His Apostles), there is one prime minister who is overall the other ministers and all the members of the Kingdom. This prime minister is the one who will have the keys of His Kingdom and will be given the primacy in His Church to look after the affairs of His Kingdom.

When Jesus said to Peter,"I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," it would have been a clear indication to all informed Jews that Jesus was going to make St Peter His prime minister. He was declaring that St Peter would be the first pope-the president or governor of His Church. This is a powerful and irrefutable proof that Jesus was indeed saying that St Peter would be the first pope in Matthew 16:18-19


 


Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 14, 2013, 11:06:12 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 14, 2013, 11:08:54 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: LBK on March 14, 2013, 11:11:18 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

At the very least, it is the centenary of the apparition's appearance.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 14, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

LBK answered the question.  The 100th Anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima.  I should have added that to my original post.   :-[

Note the irony in that Pope Francis was elected on March 13.  The apparitions started on the 13th day of the month back in 1917.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 14, 2013, 11:18:33 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 15, 2013, 12:39:56 AM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

At the very least, it is the centenary of the apparition's appearance.

So any other special thing?  Will us schismatic apostates suddenly burst into flames that year?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 15, 2013, 01:07:30 AM
do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
Catholics are not required to take a position one way or the other on private revelations.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 15, 2013, 01:13:33 AM
True or not, you shouldn't be treating it as doctrine or dogma.
That is correct. I think I may have misunderstood what you were implying in a previous post. I agree with what you are now saying here.   
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: William on March 15, 2013, 02:18:50 AM
Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

Sorry to see you say that. I admired your resistance to relativism and your tenacity, even if I disagreed with you on the issues you insisted upon.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Shiny on March 15, 2013, 02:20:54 AM
William, why are thou so reactionary?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: William on March 15, 2013, 02:22:56 AM
William, why are thou so reactionary?

Why are you not?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 15, 2013, 05:49:46 AM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


If there is no cardinal, how will you have a new true Pope of Rome?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: jmbejdl on March 15, 2013, 07:07:17 AM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


Does that not strike as condemning your position as a sedevacantist? As we do not, and never have, accepted such a doctrine it really can't touch us as Orthodox but it would seem hard to understand how you can simultaneously believe your quote to be true, consider yourself catholic and yet call the Pope of Rome a heretic.

James
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 15, 2013, 08:39:04 AM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 

and yet your Apostolic See is missing its Roman Pontiff, and you are without means to get a successor of the blessed Peter.

Do you have a vicar of that "true vicar of Christ" for your decapitated church?

As our Orthodox Patriarchs of True Catholic Church of Christ told your same Pastor Aeternus
Quote
...Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17), has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle... Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10)....This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and "much gain," and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men...Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it compasses land and sea to make one proselyte, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD, to adulterate, by addition, the divine Creed of our holy Faith, to prove the Baptism which God gave us superfluous, the communion of the Cup void of sacred efficacy, and a thousand other things which the demon of novelty dictated to the all-daring Schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things through lust of power. Our blessed predecessors and fathers, in their piety, though tried and persecuted in many ways and means, within and without, directly and indirectly, "yet confident in the LORD," were able to save and transmit to us this inestimable inheritance of our fathers, which we too, by the help of God, will transmit as a rich treasure to the generations to come, even to the end of the world. But notwithstanding this, the Papists do not cease to this day, nor will cease, according to wont, to attack Orthodoxy,—a daily living reproach which they have before their eyes, being deserters from the faith of their fathers. Would that they made these aggressions against the heresy which has overspread and mastered the West. For who doubts that had their zeal for the overthrow of Orthodoxy been employed for the overthrow of heresy and novelties, agreeable to the God-loving counsels of Leo III and John VIII, those glorious and last Orthodox Popes, not a trace of it, long ago, would have been remembered under the sun, and we should now be saying the same things, according to the Apostolic promise. But the zeal of those who succeeded them was not for the protection of the Orthodox Faith, in conformity with the zeal worthy of all remembrance which was in Leo III., now among the blessed.
 In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."
Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.8), and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. The Throne of Rome is esteemed that of St. Peter by a single tradition, but not from Holy Scripture, where the claim is in favor of Antioch, whose Church is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used." We say then that the Apostolic Church of Antioch had no right of exemption from being judged according to divine Scripture and synodical declarations, though truly venerated for the throne of St. Peter. But what do we say? The blessed Peter, even in his own person, was judged before all for the truth of the Gospel, and, as Scripture declares, was found blamable and not walking uprightly. What opinion is to be formed of those who glory and pride themselves solely in the possession of his Throne, so great in their eyes? Nay, the sublime Basil the great, the Ecumenical teacher of Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, to whom the Bishops of Rome are obliged to refer us (p. 8, 1.31), has clearly and explicitly above ( 7) shown us what estimation we ought to have of the judgments of the inaccessible Vatican:—"They neither," he says, "know the truth, nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy." So that these our holy Fathers whom his Holiness the Pope, worthily admiring as lights and teachers even of the West, accounts as belonging to us, and advises us (p. 8) to follow, teach us not to judge Orthodoxy from the holy Throne, but the Throne itself and him that is on the Throne by the sacred Scriptures, by Synodical decrees and limitations, and by the Faith which has been preached, even the Orthodoxy of continuous teaching. Thus did our Fathers judge and condemn Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, with others. For if the abomination of desolation stood in the Holy Place, why not innovation and heresy upon a holy Throne? Hence is exhibited in a brief compass the weakness and feebleness of the efforts in behalf of the despotism of the Pope of Rome
pretter prophecy than the one you have been claiming for the fall of Rome.
Quote
...From such ignorance of the Apostolic and Catholic food on which we live emanates another sententious declaration of his (p. vii. 1. 22): "It is not possible that unity of doctrine and sacred observance should be preserved among you," paradoxically ascribing to us the very misfortune from which he suffers at home; just as Pope Leo IX wrote to the blessed Michael Cerularius, accusing the Greeks of changing the Creed of the Catholic Church, without blushing either for his own honor or for the truth of history. We are persuaded that if his Holiness will call to mind ecclesiastical archaeology and history, the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the old Liturgies of France and Spain, and the Sacramentary of the ancient Roman Church, he will be struck with surprise on finding how many other monstrous daughters, now living, the Papacy has brought forth in the West: while Orthodoxy, with us, has preserved the Catholic Church as an incorruptible bride for her Bridegroom, although we have no temporal power, nor, as his Holiness says, any sacred "observances," but by the sole tie of love and affection to a common Mother are bound together in the unity of a faith sealed with the seven seals of the Spirit (Rev. v. 1), and by the seven Ecumenical Councils, and in obedience to the Truth. He will find, also, flow many modern papistical doctrines and mysteries must be rejected as "commandments of men" in order that the Church of the West, which has introduced all sorts of novelties, may be changed back again to the immutable Catholic Orthodox faith of our common fathers. As his Holiness recognizes our common zeal in this faith, when he says (p. viii. l.30), "let us take heed to the doctrine preserved by our forefathers," so he does well in instructing us (l. 31) to follow the old pontiffs and the faithful of the Eastern Metropolitans. What these thought of the doctrinal fidelity of the Archbishops of the elder Rome, and what idea we ought to have of them in the Orthodox Church, and in what manner we ought to receive their teachings, they have synodically given us an example ( 15), and the sublime Basil has well interpreted it ( 7). As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM
Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII
postdicted, more like it.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed

Suppressed? It's still said. I used to say the short form with my sons, although at the time I didn't know its original.  I got some Arabic translations from the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Btw, your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.
Sure enough. Our Lord said "I will be with you always, all the days, even to the end of the Age." So I don't have to worry about a demise like yours happening to His Church.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”
happened in 1017.
so our Lady of LaSalette was lying? how about fatima, was that true or not? and when did I say Our Lord said He wouldn't be with us always?
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.
do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
no
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse
Oh? What privileged Fatima?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?
certainly not your source.

"And that Rock was Christ" I Cor. 10:4

The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Hebrews of Antioch.  Peter is still there:
(http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/imagecache/pdf_thumbs/march_2013_word.pdf)

Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
"Thou are Peter and upon this rock...."

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America's
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.


Let's look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:


1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers


2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers


3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers


4....That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.


Archbishop Kenrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?


And you should remember that 65 of the bishops gathered
at the First Vatican Council REFUSED to vote for the
proposed dogma of papal infallibility. Were they
also blockheads? Wouldn't one say that IF the doctrine
had been so normal and accepted in the Catholic Church
in the centuries prior to Vatican I that there would
never have been such a solid block of resisting bishops
who refused to vote for it in 1869.
This was only 133 years ago, quite recently.

You can check these facts in several major Catholic writings...

"How the Pope Became Infallible" by August Bernhard Hasler.
"Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry" by Hans Kung.

They say that at the opening of Vatican I only 50 bishops
were in favour of Pope Pius IX's desire to have the Popes
declared infallible. 130 of the bishops had declared
beforehand that they were against Papal Infallibility,
and the rest of the bishops, 620 were undecided.

I have secrhed the Net a few times to try and find the actual Fathers on whom he based his statistics but have never found anything.   Anybody have any knowledge of this?
Many years! Irish Hermit!
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: John Larocque on March 15, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
Speaking of Fatima, apparently the new pope is a devotee...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2997031/posts
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 15, 2013, 09:49:27 AM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

LBK answered the question.  The 100th Anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima.  I should have added that to my original post.   :-[

Note the irony in that Pope Francis was elected on March 13.  The apparitions started on the 13th day of the month back in 1917.

That is interesting. We have 1 pope, elected 3-13-13.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: jmbejdl on March 15, 2013, 10:09:01 AM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

LBK answered the question.  The 100th Anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima.  I should have added that to my original post.   :-[

Note the irony in that Pope Francis was elected on March 13.  The apparitions started on the 13th day of the month back in 1917.

That is interesting. We have 1 pope, elected 3-13-13.

Only in America - everywhere else it's 13-03-13

James
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 15, 2013, 11:42:47 AM
Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

Sorry to see you say that. I admired your resistance to relativism and your tenacity, even if I disagreed with you on the issues you insisted upon.
Read the bolded part of my post above. I still believe that all Catholics should profess the Immactulate Conception, the dogma of Purgatory, Papal Infalliblity, etc. I just have no desire to beat Eastern Catholics over the head with this. This needs to be sorted out between them their bishops. I'm not going to enter a house that is not my own and start cleaning up.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 15, 2013, 11:31:58 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse
Oh? What privileged Fatima?
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 15, 2013, 11:35:11 PM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


Does that not strike as condemning your position as a sedevacantist? As we do not, and never have, accepted such a doctrine it really can't touch us as Orthodox but it would seem hard to understand how you can simultaneously believe your quote to be true, consider yourself catholic and yet call the Pope of Rome a heretic.

James
easy
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be
a member of the Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,
De Romano Pontifice
, II, 30:
"
A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (
per se
) ceases to be pope and
head
, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers
who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction
St. Francis De Sales (17
th
century), Doctor of the Church,
The Catholic Controversy
, pp.
305-306: "
Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly
a heretic, he falls ipso facto from
his dignity and out of the Church
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 12:10:00 AM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 12:15:41 AM
I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


If there is no cardinal, how will you have a new true Pope of Rome?
the Vatican II sect is the Whore of Babylon, don't worry about a true pope of Rome, you better worry instead about your salvation
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 12:17:17 AM
do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
Catholics are not required to take a position one way or the other on private revelations.
why can you not answer yes or no or I just don't know, read up on the link I gave to the Orthodox guy.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Nephi on March 16, 2013, 12:27:15 AM
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 16, 2013, 12:28:31 AM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 16, 2013, 12:30:51 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 16, 2013, 07:54:24 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 16, 2013, 08:19:22 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: orthros on March 16, 2013, 12:18:09 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: orthros on March 16, 2013, 12:22:00 PM
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?

This is a bigger problem with sedevacantism.

You have the conclavist sedevacantists (who elected their own Pope and thus are no longer technically sedes) such as Pope Michael I and Pius XIII/Fr. Lucian Pulvumacher's group.

You have the independent sedevacantists (called "home alone" sedes) who stay at home and just recite the Rosary (or some other pious prayers) every Sunday.

You have SSPV, which were the 9 priests who broke off from the (non-sede, but traditional) SSPX.

You have CMRI, who I think has now kisses and made up with the SSPV but which historically has not gotten along with them.

Then you have the Dimond Brothers' unique brand of theology that condemns pretty much everyone else here.


There are others I've forgotten or neglected, I'm sure.


It's worse than tracking the splits in the Presbyterian Church.  God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Nephi on March 16, 2013, 01:24:40 PM
This is a bigger problem with sedevacantism.

You have the conclavist sedevacantists (who elected their own Pope and thus are no longer technically sedes) such as Pope Michael I and Pius XIII/Fr. Lucian Pulvumacher's group.

You have the independent sedevacantists (called "home alone" sedes) who stay at home and just recite the Rosary (or some other pious prayers) every Sunday.

You have SSPV, which were the 9 priests who broke off from the (non-sede, but traditional) SSPX.

You have CMRI, who I think has now kisses and made up with the SSPV but which historically has not gotten along with them.

Then you have the Dimond Brothers' unique brand of theology that condemns pretty much everyone else here.


There are others I've forgotten or neglected, I'm sure.


It's worse than tracking the splits in the Presbyterian Church.  God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.

Precisely. There's actually a CMRI parish here in town, and I must say I have a great deal of respect for their priest. He has three parishes that range all across the state - it really takes determination to drive so many hours between parishes regularly without living in a specific place.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Nephi on March 16, 2013, 01:25:52 PM
I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.

Wouldn't Fatima be problematic for your identity as a Melkite? It pretty much smacks down traditional Eastern theology by affirming Western theology. Just curious though, not trying to offend.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: orthros on March 16, 2013, 01:56:54 PM
I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.

Wouldn't Fatima be problematic for your identity as a Melkite? It pretty much smacks down traditional Eastern theology by affirming Western theology. Just curious though, not trying to offend.

How so? I don't see any apparent contradiction. Can you explain?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: William on March 16, 2013, 02:05:45 PM
God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.

You just gotta love the combination of unwillingness to compromise and exclusivist religions.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Nephi on March 16, 2013, 02:11:58 PM
How so? I don't see any apparent contradiction. Can you explain?

Specifically things like purgatory, God's wrath wanting to be poured out on the earth with Mary holding it back, and (IIRC) the immaculate conception. The theological assumptions each of these ideas are hard to reconcile with Eastern theology's assumptions. In other words, it seems to me that if Fatima is completely true then Eastern theology is flawed at best.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 16, 2013, 02:52:45 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?

Well, I didn't mean that you have to know that there's a difference between e.g. Pope Michael I and the dozens of people in communion with him, and Pope Francis and the billion+ people in communion with him. But I do think it makes you appear more intelligent if you do. :)

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

I wouldn't literally put them anywhere (unless they asked me for a ride somewhere) but whenever I start a thread about them I put it in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: orthros on March 16, 2013, 03:27:37 PM
How so? I don't see any apparent contradiction. Can you explain?

Specifically things like purgatory, God's wrath wanting to be poured out on the earth with Mary holding it back, and (IIRC) the immaculate conception. The theological assumptions each of these ideas are hard to reconcile with Eastern theology's assumptions. In other words, it seems to me that if Fatima is completely true then Eastern theology is flawed at best.

Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't know any statements of Fatima that overly relate to Purgatory.  Hell, yes.  And perhaps that's one point, that they showed Hell as a place where people are in flames of torment.  But that concept is not foreign to most Melkites, and I'm guessing more believe in that "version" of Hell than the "River of Fire" scenario of Hell and Heaven being in the same place. 

The Immaculate Conception was more of a Lourdes thing.  Strangely, the Antiochians seem to love Lourdes, although I personally am much more neutral about it.

As for the Theotokos holding back God's wrath, again, if you buy into "River of Fire" it's contradictory.  But I just finished The Last Akathist last night, and sang "O Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us" about 75 times.  I do believe Mary's prayers effect mercy; again, most Melkites are probably in my corner on this one.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 16, 2013, 04:59:06 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?

Well, I didn't mean that you have to know that there's a difference between e.g. Pope Michael I and the dozens of people in communion with him, and Pope Francis and the billion+ people in communion with him. But I do think it makes you appear more intelligent if you do. :)
Just numbers.  I can count.

But the division in this section isn't according to numbers. Just dogma.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

I wouldn't literally put them anywhere (unless they asked me for a ride somewhere) but whenever I start a thread about them I put it in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section.
Somehow I think they'd protest that.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Nephi on March 16, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't know any statements of Fatima that overly relate to Purgatory.  Hell, yes.  And perhaps that's one point, that they showed Hell as a place where people are in flames of torment.  But that concept is not foreign to most Melkites, and I'm guessing more believe in that "version" of Hell than the "River of Fire" scenario of Hell and Heaven being in the same place.  
The references to Hell aren't a problem, but there are a number of explicit references to purgatory.  Here's one:
Quote
‘And Amelia (http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/1917appar.asp)?’

‘She will be in Purgatory until the end of the world.’


The Immaculate Conception was more of a Lourdes thing.  Strangely, the Antiochians seem to love Lourdes, although I personally am much more neutral about it.
It was just an affirmation of the immaculate conception that came before. This wasn't directly at Fatima, but was to Sr Lucy later:
Quote
“My daughter, the reason is simple (http://www.fatima.org/essentials/whatucando/sac%26immhrts/fatima.asp). There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

1. Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.


As for the Theotokos holding back God's wrath, again, if you buy into "River of Fire" it's contradictory.  But I just finished The Last Akathist last night, and sang "O Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us" about 75 times.  I do believe Mary's prayers effect mercy; again, most Melkites are probably in my corner on this one.
I'm not familiar with the "River of Fire," although I believe fully that the Theotokos' prayers are the most efficacious. That said, the Fatima accounts portray that God wants to destroy everyone right this second because of our offences against him, but the only thing staying Christ's hand is Mary's direct intervention. It's the relationship God has with/toward humanity that I think is problematic, not the Virgin's intervention on our behalf.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 16, 2013, 08:38:48 PM
But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).

To paraphrase MAbp Shevchuk: Who are we to determine who is canonical in Catholicism and who is not?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 09:23:12 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 09:25:32 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.
I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 09:26:59 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 09:29:08 PM
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?

This is a bigger problem with sedevacantism.

You have the conclavist sedevacantists (who elected their own Pope and thus are no longer technically sedes) such as Pope Michael I and Pius XIII/Fr. Lucian Pulvumacher's group.

You have the independent sedevacantists (called "home alone" sedes) who stay at home and just recite the Rosary (or some other pious prayers) every Sunday.

You have SSPV, which were the 9 priests who broke off from the (non-sede, but traditional) SSPX.

You have CMRI, who I think has now kisses and made up with the SSPV but which historically has not gotten along with them.

Then you have the Dimond Brothers' unique brand of theology that condemns pretty much everyone else here.


There are others I've forgotten or neglected, I'm sure.


It's worse than tracking the splits in the Presbyterian Church.  God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.
let me clear it up for you
The sedevacantist groups you mention (except the dimonds)  are not true Catholics since they reject the clear dogma of the true Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of the church. So do you believe there is salvation outside the church?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 16, 2013, 09:33:09 PM
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.
don't worry about if i would say, concentrate on what I actually say, Fatima is important because it proves the Catholic religion, so for eastern orthodox it would be a good idea for them to look into the matter, for catholics if one doesn't believe in fatima it wouldn't necessarily affect their salvation, it would just mean that person is ignorant.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 16, 2013, 09:35:50 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.


You just proved the Orthodox point. No where in the Bible was Peter regarded higher than the other 11 Apostles.  The 12 foundations, the promise that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, they are always co-equal.  Proof that Peter is not a supreme, infallible bishop or Apostle over all the other Apostles.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 16, 2013, 09:37:51 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 16, 2013, 10:25:12 PM
let me clear it up for you
The sedevacantist groups you mention (except the dimonds)  are not true Catholics ...
So, according to you, the Dimonds are the only true Catholics? What is your relationship with MHFM?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 07:56:03 AM
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?
I don't belong to any sedevacantist group, I'm a traditional catholic, who adheres to the strict teachings of the traditional pre vatican 2 church, the main difference between a true traditionalist and the fake traditionalists and modernists is for starters that I believe there is absolutely no salvation outside of the catholic church.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 08:02:53 AM
let me clear it up for you
The sedevacantist groups you mention (except the dimonds)  are not true Catholics ...
So, according to you, the Dimonds are the only true Catholics? What is your relationship with MHFM?
not sure where you are getting this idea, I have no relationship with them, I believe the info they post is the truth, a true catholic must reject vatican 2, they must believe there is no salvation outside the church
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 08:10:22 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.


You just proved the Orthodox point. No where in the Bible was Peter regarded higher than the other 11 Apostles.  The 12 foundations, the promise that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, they are always co-equal.  Proof that Peter is not a supreme, infallible bishop or Apostle over all the other Apostles.
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 08:15:30 AM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.
[/quote

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Arachne on March 17, 2013, 08:18:29 AM
What's with all the demands for refutation bandied about lately? Y'all letting social litigiousness get to you or what? ???
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 17, 2013, 08:43:00 AM
But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).

To paraphrase MAbp Shevchuk: Who are we to determine who is canonical in Catholicism and who is not?

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 17, 2013, 10:36:41 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 17, 2013, 10:37:40 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 17, 2013, 10:54:30 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .
Solemn pronouncements by headless churches lack substance.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Sede_vacante.svg)

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.
 
Evidently, your "supreme authority of the bishop of Rome" couldn't either, and held Vatican II.

As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.
 
Just showing that he hasn't a clue on "the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy."

Or your own: Vatican II had far more bishops, and it was called and approved by your bishop of Rome.

Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw…
well, we have to bow to all your expertise in farce.

You have the larger problem that the only difference between Constantinople I and Ephesus II, from the Vatican POV, lay in Old Rome's protesting at the latter through a representative, where it protested from afar the former.  Both Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, who opened the former, and Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, who opened the latter, were at the time not in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome.

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?
 
It didn't: we had one in 879 (Constantinople IV), a series of them in the XIIIth century (Constantinople V), 1672, (Synod of Jerusalem) etc.

That we didn't have any of the status of Ecumenical Councils, we didn't have any Church tearing heresies, while the Vatican, so mired in heresy-including squabbling over who was the real "supreme pontiff" and "font of unity"-had to keep making it up as it went along.

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?
It strikes me as ridiculous that someone who rejects a council approved by the one "supreme pontiff" according to Pastor Aeternus, should attempt to make such an arbitrary argument.

What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?
Our side-or rather, those whom the Emperor could force to sign (Caesaropapism is only good when the Vatican does it)-signed with the proviso that it would have to be approved by a Synod convened in the East, which approval never was had.

On your side, you had your original pope still in Basel, opposed to your supreme pontiff Eugene as an "antipope" and his council a "robber council."

How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?
How on Earth could you logically say that Vatican II was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were?

What are the criteria?
 
Just one: Truth.
I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.
 
more likely because your fingers were down your ear canal
(http://www.webcomicalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ears.jpg)
because we don't deal in theory, just the history and facts of how the Ecumenical Councils were conducted and approved.

Meanwhile, you still haven't solved even in theory how you arrogate the power to yourselves to reject a council your bishop of Rome approved.

Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-72qi3pM9aEY/UKDVwVMuEpI/AAAAAAAANbY/X7gnbE_Ow3g/s1600/cwpix.jpg)
physician, heal thyself.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 17, 2013, 10:54:30 AM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.


You just proved the Orthodox point. No where in the Bible was Peter regarded higher than the other 11 Apostles.  The 12 foundations, the promise that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, they are always co-equal.  Proof that Peter is not a supreme, infallible bishop or Apostle over all the other Apostles.
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)
St. John Chrysostom wrote that homily when he was not in communion with the bishop of Rome.  Around the same time, he applies the same words to a bishop Basil of Raphnea, a suffragan of a metropolitan under the Patriarch of Antioch, not a pope of Rome, as indeed in Scripture, as we went over this before, St. Paul, as mouth of the disciples become Apostles, applies the same word to the bishops as he hands the Church over to the bishops in Acts 20.

We have someone to apply the verse to.  You do not.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 17, 2013, 11:04:38 AM
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)

No, you are wrong. Did Peter start the Church alone?  There were 120 people in the upper room at Pentecost.  Peter's role as head of the apostolic choir doesn't means he is above and beyond the Apostles.  The problem with you Papists (ah, the line that got me banned at CAF  ;D) is that every passage you read you always conclude it means what you want it to mean but it doesn't really mean what you want it to mean.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 17, 2013, 11:32:53 AM
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?
I don't belong to any sedevacantist group, I'm a traditional catholic, who adheres to the strict teachings of the traditional pre vatican 2 church, the main difference between a true traditionalist and the fake traditionalists and modernists is for starters that I believe there is absolutely no salvation outside of the catholic church.

What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 01:31:13 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 17, 2013, 01:32:41 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Is it from a book? - write the title and pages.
Is it from a website? - give an url.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 17, 2013, 01:56:31 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 04:21:54 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Is it from a book? - write the title and pages.
Is it from a website? - give an url.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/refuting_eastern_orthodox.php
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 17, 2013, 04:24:14 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Is it from a book? - write the title and pages.
Is it from a website? - give an url.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/refuting_eastern_orthodox.php

Thank you. Every time you post something copied from another one place, you are required to give the source.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 04:24:57 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 17, 2013, 04:29:30 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game

I don't believe in abominations like Fatima.  The Virgin Mary I believe is the dewey fleece.  She provides relief, not damnation.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 17, 2013, 04:36:18 PM
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/refuting_eastern_orthodox.php
Very amusing.
Quote
THE EASTERN ORTHODOX REJECT THE LAST 13 COUNCILS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
But the Vatican has had 14 councils since it split from us (and one before, rejecting the true Fourth Council of Constantinople after it left us)
Quote
The 21 Ecumenical Councils...
VIII. FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 869


IX. FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1123


X. SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1139


XI. THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1179


XII. FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1215

XIII. FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS
Year: 1245


XIV. SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS
Year: 1274


XV. COUNCIL OF VIENNE
Years: 1311-1313


XVI. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
Years: 1414-1418


XVII. COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE
Years: 1431-1439


XVIII. FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL
Years: 1512-1517

XIX. COUNCIL OF TRENT
Years: 1545-1563


XX. FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1869-1870

XXI. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1962-1965
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 17, 2013, 04:40:41 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game
we'll take your word on that. ;)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 08:38:39 PM
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

;)

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .
Solemn pronouncements by headless churches lack substance.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Sede_vacante.svg)

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.
 
Evidently, your "supreme authority of the bishop of Rome" couldn't either, and held Vatican II.

As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.
 
Just showing that he hasn't a clue on "the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy."

Or your own: Vatican II had far more bishops, and it was called and approved by your bishop of Rome.

Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw…
well, we have to bow to all your expertise in farce.

You have the larger problem that the only difference between Constantinople I and Ephesus II, from the Vatican POV, lay in Old Rome's protesting at the latter through a representative, where it protested from afar the former.  Both Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, who opened the former, and Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, who opened the latter, were at the time not in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome.

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?
 
It didn't: we had one in 879 (Constantinople IV), a series of them in the XIIIth century (Constantinople V), 1672, (Synod of Jerusalem) etc.

That we didn't have any of the status of Ecumenical Councils, we didn't have any Church tearing heresies, while the Vatican, so mired in heresy-including squabbling over who was the real "supreme pontiff" and "font of unity"-had to keep making it up as it went along.

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?
It strikes me as ridiculous that someone who rejects a council approved by the one "supreme pontiff" according to Pastor Aeternus, should attempt to make such an arbitrary argument.

What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?
Our side-or rather, those whom the Emperor could force to sign (Caesaropapism is only good when the Vatican does it)-signed with the proviso that it would have to be approved by a Synod convened in the East, which approval never was had.

On your side, you had your original pope still in Basel, opposed to your supreme pontiff Eugene as an "antipope" and his council a "robber council."

How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?
How on Earth could you logically say that Vatican II was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were?

What are the criteria?
 
Just one: Truth.
I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.
 
more likely because your fingers were down your ear canal
(http://www.webcomicalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ears.jpg)
because we don't deal in theory, just the history and facts of how the Ecumenical Councils were conducted and approved.

Meanwhile, you still haven't solved even in theory how you arrogate the power to yourselves to reject a council your bishop of Rome approved.

Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-72qi3pM9aEY/UKDVwVMuEpI/AAAAAAAANbY/X7gnbE_Ow3g/s1600/cwpix.jpg)
physician, heal thyself.
very amusing, especially your truth answer, you asked a question instead of answering because you have none, your answers are in here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 08:40:55 PM
Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game

I don't believe in abominations like Fatima.  The Virgin Mary I believe is the dewey fleece.  She provides relief, not damnation.
fatima abomination,? how did you reach this decision, what have you read on this issue
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 17, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
fatima abomination,? how did you reach this decision, what have you read on this issue

I read the Wikipedia article on Fatima (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima).

I don't believe in apparitions; they are work of the Devil; hence, the Devil's work is an abomination. 
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 17, 2013, 08:51:10 PM
Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)

We don't celebrate pagan holidays about mythical rabbits that bring eggs.





(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/485760_319697924766843_1502384645_n.jpg)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 17, 2013, 08:52:09 PM
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)

No, you are wrong. Did Peter start the Church alone?  There were 120 people in the upper room at Pentecost.  Peter's role as head of the apostolic choir doesn't means he is above and beyond the Apostles.  The problem with you Papists (ah, the line that got me banned at CAF  ;D) is that every passage you read you always conclude it means what you want it to mean but it doesn't really mean what you want it to mean.

ahh like "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt 16:18)
that I say Peter is the rock or
"and I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in haven..." (Matt 16:19)
That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter or
John 21:15-17
that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I guess this fchurch father also has my problem of misinterpreting the bible uhh?

you are lost

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: SolEX01 on March 17, 2013, 09:30:24 PM
Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   :)

We don't celebrate pagan holidays about mythical rabbits that bring eggs.

We Orthodox don't use the term Easter but sedevacantists do.  I was wishing him what he knew.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: John Larocque on March 19, 2013, 12:04:11 AM
sedevacantist is in awfully good company. There's a group of reknowned Roman Catholic theologians who have been arguing that when the popes diverge from the Councils, the seat of Peter becomes Vacant. According to Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Mathew Fox, John Paul II, Pope Benedict (and most probably Pope Francis) are anti-popes, and the seat of Peter has become vacant because they have diverged from the authentic and infallible teaching authority of a Council of the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/is_pope_francis_a_fraud/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

Theological liberals have been agitated because this pontiff (and the last one) are promoters of Communion and Liberation, a group which engenders the same kind of reaction that you get from, say, Opus Dei in the Dan Brown books, or the Jesuits back in the days of yore.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 19, 2013, 02:30:31 AM
sedevacantist is in awfully good company. There's a group of reknowned Roman Catholic theologians who have been arguing that when the popes diverge from the Councils, the seat of Peter becomes Vacant. According to Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Mathew Fox, John Paul II, Pope Benedict (and most probably Pope Francis) are anti-popes, and the seat of Peter has become vacant because they have diverged from the authentic and infallible teaching authority of a Council of the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/is_pope_francis_a_fraud/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

Theological liberals have been agitated because this pontiff (and the last one) are promoters of Communion and Liberation, a group which engenders the same kind of reaction that you get from, say, Opus Dei in the Dan Brown books, or the Jesuits back in the days of yore.
I heard that Matthew Fox had a practicing witch, Miriam Simos (Starhawk), on his staff. I  wonder if he consulted with his witch, Miriam Simos, when he reached his conclusion that Pope Benedict was not a Pope.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 04:25:35 AM
Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-72qi3pM9aEY/UKDVwVMuEpI/AAAAAAAANbY/X7gnbE_Ow3g/s1600/cwpix.jpg)
physician, heal thyself.
very amusing, especially your truth answer, you asked a question instead of answering because you have none
Answered
What are the criteria?
 
Just one: Truth.
your answers are in here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
No, that's your coreligionist shooting you in the foot on your retreat from Vatican II.

My (and Christ's) answers are in here
(http://bookblog.energion.com/images/orthodox_study_bible.png)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 04:25:35 AM
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)

No, you are wrong. Did Peter start the Church alone?  There were 120 people in the upper room at Pentecost.  Peter's role as head of the apostolic choir doesn't means he is above and beyond the Apostles.  The problem with you Papists (ah, the line that got me banned at CAF  ;D) is that every passage you read you always conclude it means what you want it to mean but it doesn't really mean what you want it to mean.

ahh like "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt 16:18)
that I say Peter is the rock or
"and I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in haven..." (Matt 16:19)
or
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)
That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter or
John 21:15-17
that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep
And St. Paul tells all the bishops in Asia (and in general) that the Holy Spirit appointed them for that (Acts 20:28).

St. Peter mentions your interpretation: II Peter 3:16

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I guess this fchurch father also has my problem of misinterpreting the bible uhh?
No, in particular that he was no in communion with the bishop of Old Rome at the time, because he was in communion with St. Peter's successor, Pat. Meletius of Antioch.

you are lost
you have lost your head
(http://www.wdtprs.com/images/07_03_12_tiara1_sm.jpg)
nobody's there.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 04:25:35 AM
sedevacantist is in awfully good company. There's a group of reknowned Roman Catholic theologians who have been arguing that when the popes diverge from the Councils, the seat of Peter becomes Vacant. According to Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Mathew Fox, John Paul II, Pope Benedict (and most probably Pope Francis) are anti-popes, and the seat of Peter has become vacant because they have diverged from the authentic and infallible teaching authority of a Council of the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/is_pope_francis_a_fraud/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

Theological liberals have been agitated because this pontiff (and the last one) are promoters of Communion and Liberation, a group which engenders the same kind of reaction that you get from, say, Opus Dei in the Dan Brown books, or the Jesuits back in the days of yore.
So they are all united in accepting Pastor Aeternus and rejecting its consequence.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 19, 2013, 08:56:10 AM
What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?

Why not answer these two questions, sedevacantist?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: John Larocque on March 19, 2013, 09:17:06 AM
I just love these quotes...

Kung:

Quote
The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when it separates from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. "Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church." (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).

A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread  popular movement of "disobedience" against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. , he would have alone the responsibility.

Fox:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/former-dominican-sees-churchs-demise-blessing-disguise

Quote
The premise of The Pope’s War is that we’ve been given two schismatic popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, over the past three decades for a reason. And that is to shake us up so that we will press the restart button on Christianity...

In the book, I tell the story of Fr. [Edward] Schillebeeckx, a great Catholic theologian whom I respect tremendously. He brought this issue of schism to my attention years ago, when the Dutch Dominicans were offering me asylum. He told me, and this is a quote, "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy [of John Paul II] is in schism." And my response was, well, what are we going to do about it? And though he never said a word, he looked at me with this face that said, "You Americans are so naive, you think you can do something about it."

Schism is a heavy word theologically and historically. But I think it applies to the previous pope and the present pope because they have trumped the Second Vatican Council. The truth, according to Catholic theology, is that councils trump popes, popes don’t trump councils. All of the reforms of Vatican II have been erased. This is pretty serious in terms of the history of the church.

But what it also means is that any Catholic who is following the principles and spirit of Vatican II is free to carry on those principles because the church is now elsewhere.

And recently...
Quote
In my book, "The Pope's War: How Ratzinger's Crusade Imperiled the Church and How It Can Be Saved," where I document all the above abuses and more, I also make the point that the late and great Dutch Dominican Father Schillebeexks made to me more than 15 years ago when he said: "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy is in schism." ... If we are correct that the Vatican is in schism, then that means that every Cardinal, bishop and priest anointed over the past 42 years is in schism, and therefore, does not need to be heeded or listened to... And now we have a conclave full of schismatic cardinals voting for another schismatic pope.

Quote
When I asked Fox whether he actually held out hope for Pope Francis, he briefly tried to be diplomatic, saying he was praying for the new pontiff and wished him well. Then he said, "But remember that all those cardinals that voted for him were appointed by John Paul II and Ratzinger" - and therefore, from Fox’s point of view, are not legitimate cardinals at all.

Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: primuspilus on March 19, 2013, 10:19:07 AM
*subscribing*
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
I just love these quotes...

Kung:

Quote
The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when it separates from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. "Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church." (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).

A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread  popular movement of "disobedience" against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. , he would have alone the responsibility.

Fox:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/former-dominican-sees-churchs-demise-blessing-disguise

Quote
The premise of The Pope’s War is that we’ve been given two schismatic popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, over the past three decades for a reason. And that is to shake us up so that we will press the restart button on Christianity...

In the book, I tell the story of Fr. [Edward] Schillebeeckx, a great Catholic theologian whom I respect tremendously. He brought this issue of schism to my attention years ago, when the Dutch Dominicans were offering me asylum. He told me, and this is a quote, "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy [of John Paul II] is in schism." And my response was, well, what are we going to do about it? And though he never said a word, he looked at me with this face that said, "You Americans are so naive, you think you can do something about it."

Schism is a heavy word theologically and historically. But I think it applies to the previous pope and the present pope because they have trumped the Second Vatican Council. The truth, according to Catholic theology, is that councils trump popes, popes don’t trump councils. All of the reforms of Vatican II have been erased. This is pretty serious in terms of the history of the church.

But what it also means is that any Catholic who is following the principles and spirit of Vatican II is free to carry on those principles because the church is now elsewhere.

And recently...
Quote
In my book, "The Pope's War: How Ratzinger's Crusade Imperiled the Church and How It Can Be Saved," where I document all the above abuses and more, I also make the point that the late and great Dutch Dominican Father Schillebeexks made to me more than 15 years ago when he said: "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy is in schism." ... If we are correct that the Vatican is in schism, then that means that every Cardinal, bishop and priest anointed over the past 42 years is in schism, and therefore, does not need to be heeded or listened to... And now we have a conclave full of schismatic cardinals voting for another schismatic pope.

Quote
When I asked Fox whether he actually held out hope for Pope Francis, he briefly tried to be diplomatic, saying he was praying for the new pontiff and wished him well. Then he said, "But remember that all those cardinals that voted for him were appointed by John Paul II and Ratzinger" - and therefore, from Fox’s point of view, are not legitimate cardinals at all.
Well, that's what you get for putting all your eggs in one basket, as they have for the past millenium.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wPtwjesbDbM/Tb8hjdpcrVI/AAAAAAAAALc/li1AgtrH9Ts/s1600/129174456211834256.jpg)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 19, 2013, 11:06:20 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 19, 2013, 11:15:01 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Returning to MABp Shevchuk, he stated something like that.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: jmbejdl on March 19, 2013, 11:15:13 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that). It only ever really gets used by us if we're having to distinguish between EO and OO and even then its hardly self-designation so much as a way to avoid confusion.

James
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 11:33:28 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.
This is a Catholic forum.

As for the fora that apologize for the Vatican 1) why should we Catholics care? 2) they already run with those who call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." 3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Since there isn't really a supreme pontiff, we have no dog in your fight.

Or did you expect us to take your supreme pontiff's word on it?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: JoeS2 on March 19, 2013, 11:50:57 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.
This is a Catholic forum.

As for the fora that apologize for the Vatican 1) why should we Catholics care? 2) they already run with those who call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." 3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Since there isn't really a supreme pontiff, we have no dog in your fight.

Or did you expect us to take your supreme pontiff's word on it?

Are we Catholic?  Fully !
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 19, 2013, 12:22:39 PM
3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Yes, I've been complaining about the "Non-Catholic Religions Forum" for years.

Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 19, 2013, 12:25:30 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that).

True, I don't like that -- because the Orthodox use it as a set-up to then say that we ECs must not really be Eastern.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: jmbejdl on March 19, 2013, 01:00:41 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that).

True, I don't like that -- because the Orthodox use it as a set-up to then say that we ECs must not really be Eastern.

And I don't like Eastern Orthodox because plenty of westerners (Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, though more often the latter) use it to portray us as an ethnic faith which is inherently geographically limited and certainly not Catholic. I'm not sure that you should really use the one (except to distinguish between EO and OO as appropriate) and complain about the other.

James
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 19, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that).

True, I don't like that -- because the Orthodox use it as a set-up to then say that we ECs must not really be Eastern.

And I don't like Eastern Orthodox because plenty of westerners (Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, though more often the latter) use it to portray us as an ethnic faith which is inherently geographically limited and certainly not Catholic. I'm not sure that you should really use the one (except to distinguish between EO and OO as appropriate) and complain about the other.

James

But that is the reason I use "Eastern Orthodox". You guys decided that "Orthodox" without qualifier includes also the "Miaphysite Orthodox" who reject 4 ecumenical councils.

P.S. I don't know whether you're a participant on a certain Catholic internet forum that I'm thinking of; but I think it is interesting that one of the most common opinions that Orthodox have about said forum is that it ought to have an "Eastern Christianity section" rather than an "Eastern Catholicism section".
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 19, 2013, 03:38:07 PM
3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Yes, I've been complaining about the "Non-Catholic Religions Forum" for years.

Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

I can undertand what they do that.  I used to run a PlayStation gamers forum and we have one section just called "Other Gaming Platforms" which lumps together the XBox, Wii, PC, and all the other non-Sony consoles both current and past.  CAF is a Catholic forum, so anything that is "other" gets lumped together, how unfair that may sound.  And it is against their apologetic nature to just lump ECs and EOs together regardless of how much we say our theology is the same (or nearly identical, however one wants to phrase it).  Of course they want to differentiate those loyal to the Pope and those who are schismatics  :P
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: JoeS2 on March 19, 2013, 03:51:51 PM


P.S. I don't know whether you're a participant on a certain Catholic internet forum that I'm thinking of; but I think it is interesting that one of the most common opinions that Orthodox have about said forum is that it ought to have an "Eastern Christianity section" rather than an "Eastern Catholicism section".

It did have an "Eastern Christianity" section but after we were kicked off without a good reason, they changed it over to Eastern Catholic.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 19, 2013, 04:06:46 PM
3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Yes, I've been complaining about the "Non-Catholic Religions Forum" for years.

Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

I can undertand what they do that. 

I guess that's why CAF likes you better than me. ;D

Kidding.

I used to run a PlayStation gamers forum and we have one section just called "Other Gaming Platforms" which lumps together the XBox, Wii, PC, and all the other non-Sony consoles both current and past.  CAF is a Catholic forum, so anything that is "other" gets lumped together, how unfair that may sound. 

That analogy would work if it were called "the Non-Catholic Christians sections", but it isn't. It's "the Non-Catholic Religions section". So to make your analogy fit better, expand "Other Gaming Platforms section" to "Other Electrical Devices section".
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 04:16:36 PM
3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Yes, I've been complaining about the "Non-Catholic Religions Forum" for years.

Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".
sedevantist calls himself "Roman Catholic," when he isn't claiming he's the only "Catholic."
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on March 19, 2013, 04:43:25 PM
Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

Your bishops don't.

http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2013/02/patriarch-sviatoslav-its-not-for-us-to.html
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 19, 2013, 04:54:16 PM
I guess that's why CAF likes you better than me. ;D

They like me so much they read each and every word I post  ;D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 05:53:00 PM
Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

Your bishops don't.

http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2013/02/patriarch-sviatoslav-its-not-for-us-to.html
meh, they recognize baptism by Muslims, so doesn't mean much. Nonetheless, a striking admission that the UGCC's theology is Latin.

Btw, are the Pidhirtsi Fathers coming to the next "Orthodox-Catholic" meeting for Ukraine?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 19, 2013, 05:53:00 PM
Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

Your bishops don't.

http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2013/02/patriarch-sviatoslav-its-not-for-us-to.html
Quote
If I offended anyone, I apologize. But they should explain where I am wrong.
LOL.  Talk about open ended questions that you don't want answered.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 19, 2013, 11:24:39 PM

no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to (Matt 16:19)
or
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)
That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter or
John 21:15-17
that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep
And St. Paul tells all the bishops in Asia (and in general) that the Holy Spirit appointed them for that (Acts 20:28).

St. Peter mentions your interpretation: II Peter 3:16


[/quote]

you write "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)"

so according to your logic Jesus couldn't have told Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 because of what Jesus told Peter in Matt 16:23?? or maybe because of John's 3 fold denial like another Orthodox had argued with me...  your problem is not with me but with Christ , you question Jesus' decision making nstead of accepting Jesus' will of appointing Peter the 1st pope like a true christian would do.

 (Acts 20:28 ) does not mean Jesus didn't tell Peter to rule his sheep, you have nothing

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book III, Chapter 3(Book III, Chapter 3)

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 19, 2013, 11:25:45 PM
What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?

Why not answer these two questions, sedevacantist?
be specific about your first question, as for the 2nd question you are asking me why would God allow this to happen, leave us with no pope, maybe the following can shed some light

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 19, 2013, 11:33:39 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Maria on March 20, 2013, 01:02:06 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 20, 2013, 05:44:28 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 20, 2013, 06:58:31 AM
What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?

Why not answer these two questions, sedevacantist?
be specific about your first question, as for the 2nd question you are asking me why would God allow this to happen, leave us with no pope, maybe the following can shed some light

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

How can St. Isaac the Syrian be a saint when he was never subject to the Roman pontiff, out of the Roman communion and was in the Nestorian Church if there is absolutely no salvation ouside of the Roman Church?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 20, 2013, 06:59:11 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

Donatism?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 20, 2013, 08:30:39 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

With his mouth, I guess.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 20, 2013, 08:35:20 AM
Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

Your bishops don't.

http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2013/02/patriarch-sviatoslav-its-not-for-us-to.html

Ah. I take it that's what you were "paraphrasing" earlier?

Frankly it's a little amazing to me that you can interpret his statement to mean that "is Eastern Orthodox" = "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".

P.S. I wonder if we should start a new thread about that interview?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: jmbejdl on March 20, 2013, 08:51:47 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?

It seems to me that he's been asked exactly this several times in this thread and never has managed to come up with anything even approaching a coherent answer. I'm not sure he's actually managed to join the dots yet.

James
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 20, 2013, 10:30:38 AM

no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to (Matt 16:19)
or
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)
That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter or
John 21:15-17
that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep
And St. Paul tells all the bishops in Asia (and in general) that the Holy Spirit appointed them for that (Acts 20:28).

St. Peter mentions your interpretation: II Peter 3:16



you write "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)"

so according to your logic Jesus couldn't have told Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 because of what Jesus told Peter in Matt 16:23?? or maybe because of John's 3 fold denial like another Orthodox had argued with me...  your problem is not with me but with Christ , you question Jesus' decision making nstead of accepting Jesus' will of appointing Peter the 1st pope like a true christian would do.

 (Acts 20:28 ) does not mean Jesus didn't tell Peter to rule his sheep, you have nothing

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book III, Chapter 3(Book III, Chapter 3)

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
[/quote]
you seem to be talking to yourself here.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 20, 2013, 08:43:58 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)


Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 20, 2013, 08:45:46 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

this is a complicated issue
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/sacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_debate.php

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.  Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.  Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite.  And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.  Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

 

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics.  St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

 

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.”  He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

 
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 20, 2013, 08:56:06 PM
What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?

Why not answer these two questions, sedevacantist?
be specific about your first question, as for the 2nd question you are asking me why would God allow this to happen, leave us with no pope, maybe the following can shed some light

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

How can St. Isaac the Syrian be a saint when he was never subject to the Roman pontiff, out of the Roman communion and was in the Nestorian Church if there is absolutely no salvation ouside of the Roman Church?
I don't know the specifics about St Isaac, what I do know is that the Catholic Church teaches thee is no salvation outside the church, do you believe jews can be saved?

Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590‐604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly
except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”23
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 20, 2013, 09:06:35 PM
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

We've been in the end times since the Ascension.

The Orthodox reject the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope as well as everything in Pastor Aeternus, including it being a dogma.  Other than that, we acknowledge that an Orthodox bishop of Rome would be the First Among Equals of the Patriarchs.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 20, 2013, 09:10:00 PM
Donatism?

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin.  But a heretic is thrown out of the Church.  I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not?  And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 20, 2013, 09:25:28 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)


Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century
Several did-Pope Leo IX of Rome, for instance.

We don't reject the Papacy. It never existed until Old Rome went its own way, and so we never had it to reject it.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 20, 2013, 09:25:28 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

this is a complicated issue
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/sacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_debate.php

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.  Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.  Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite.  And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.  Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

 

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics.  St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

 

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.”  He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

 
makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Maria on March 21, 2013, 01:54:21 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

this is a complicated issue
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/sacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_debate.php

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.  Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.  Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite.  And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.  Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

 

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics.  St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

 

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.”  He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

 
makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.

Who would want to receive the Holy Mysteries from a heretic?

There is some debate about St. Constantine and his death-bed conversion.
Some say that the bishop who received him was an Arian heretic, while others claim that this very bishop had returned to Orthodox by that time. But this would be another discussion, and it probably has already been discussed here many times before.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 21, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 21, 2013, 08:23:10 PM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).
means a lot coming from someone who says Peter isn't the rock in matthew
(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

this is a complicated issue
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/sacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_debate.php

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.  Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.  Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite.  And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.  Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

 

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics.  St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

 

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.”  He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

 
makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.
this coming from someone who says Peter isn't the rock in Matthew 16,
Peter alone isn't given the keys , and the fact that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 should be discounted since Paul uses the same terminology  when addressing the bishops.....
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 21, 2013, 08:35:13 PM
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

We've been in the end times since the Ascension.

The Orthodox reject the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope as well as everything in Pastor Aeternus, including it being a dogma.  Other than that, we acknowledge that an Orthodox bishop of Rome would be the First Among Equals of the Patriarchs.

so you disagree with St Iraneus here
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 21, 2013, 08:38:31 PM
so you disagree with St Iraneus here
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Of course I do, note what I highlighted in red.  Rome has deviated from Tradition because of the Filioque and the redefinition of the role of the Pope of Rome.

We are only to agree with Rome inasmuch as Rome preserves the Tradition.  Rome deviates, we don't have to agree to anything.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 21, 2013, 08:50:58 PM
Donatism?

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin.  But a heretic is thrown out of the Church.  I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not?  And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?
the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of the
Holy See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone who
has been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can be
rejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and
define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as
has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his
promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the
Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
power...
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 21, 2013, 09:02:15 PM
Donatism?

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin.  But a heretic is thrown out of the Church.  I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not?  And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?
the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of the
Holy See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone who
has been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can be
rejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and
define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as
has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his
promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the
Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
power...
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Who determines if a bishop has fallen into heresy? Is it the Dimond brothers?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Peter J on March 21, 2013, 10:06:56 PM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D

Aw, what gave it away?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Maria on March 21, 2013, 10:24:38 PM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D

Aw, what gave it away?

Certainly, the topic has veered from Byzantine Catholicism to concerns about the validity or heresy of the most recent popes.

It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy, especially the Roman Catholic dogmas of Papal infallibility and Papal supremacy. When those came tumbling down, I knew that I could no longer receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church or even in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church. It was over.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 21, 2013, 10:49:04 PM
It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy...
However, His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,” and refers to the Pope as “Your beloved and esteemed Holiness.”
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Maria on March 21, 2013, 11:04:14 PM
It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy...
However, His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,” and refers to the Pope as “Your beloved and esteemed Holiness.”
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress


However, the EP does not refer to the Pope as "Your infallible Holiness."
In fact, no where does the EP refer to the Pope as infallible or supreme.

The Pope may be the "First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome," but he is not an Orthodox Bishop. 
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 02:46:15 AM
It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy...
However, His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,” and refers to the Pope as “Your beloved and esteemed Holiness.”
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress


Nothing here is against what the Orthodox is saying.  The biggest problem is that Roman Catholics always interpret "primacy" to mean supreme universal jurisdiction and infallibility.  The Orthodox has always kept the original meaning of "primacy".
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 03:08:22 AM

I don't know the specifics about St Isaac, what I do know is that the Catholic Church teaches thee is no salvation outside the church, do you believe jews can be saved?

If they're baptised and christian, why not?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 03:11:36 AM

I don't know the specifics about St Isaac, what I do know is that the Catholic Church teaches thee is no salvation outside the church, do you believe jews can be saved?

If they're baptised and christian, why not?

Ultimately, we do not know who gets saved or not.  There is only one judge, and we don't get to tell Him what to do.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 05:10:03 AM

I don't know the specifics about St Isaac, what I do know is that the Catholic Church teaches thee is no salvation outside the church, do you believe jews can be saved?

If they're baptised and christian, why not?

Ultimately, we do not know who gets saved or not.  There is only one judge, and we don't get to tell Him what to do.

We do know when a saint is canonised  ;)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy...
However, His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,” and refers to the Pope as “Your beloved and esteemed Holiness.”
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress


However, the EP does not refer to the Pope as "Your infallible Holiness."
In fact, no where does the EP refer to the Pope as infallible or supreme.

The Pope may be the "First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome," but he is not an Orthodox Bishop. 
This bishop at Rome is:
(http://www.doxologia.ro/sites/default/files/imagecache/imagine_600_width/articol/2012/07/ps_siluan_2.jpg)
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy...
However, His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,” and refers to the Pope as “Your beloved and esteemed Holiness.”
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
And?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

We've been in the end times since the Ascension.

The Orthodox reject the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope as well as everything in Pastor Aeternus, including it being a dogma.  Other than that, we acknowledge that an Orthodox bishop of Rome would be the First Among Equals of the Patriarchs.

so you disagree with St Iraneus here
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
No, we agree with all what St. Irenaeus wrote: he says that he restricts his discussion to Old Rome because it would be tedious and prolix to go over all the sees throughout the world (although he does speak of a few more nonetheless).  Being in the West, that would make sense.  Notice too, even in your edited quote, that St. Paul is mentioned equal to St. Peter, which does not comport with the mythology that Pastor Aeternus set up.

As for "preeminent authority" we have dealt with that translation:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg297744.html#msg297744
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24876.msg385825.html#msg385825
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27413.msg432093.html#msg432093
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14697.msg515232.html#msg515232
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.
this coming from someone who says Peter isn't the rock in Matthew 16
Argue with the Fathers. That we don't tow your ultramontanist line isn't our problem.

You going to say Peter isn't Satan in Matthew 16?
Peter alone isn't given the keys
That's right. So say the Fathers.
and the fact that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 should be discounted since Paul uses the same terminology  when addressing the bishops.....
no, your ultramontanist misinterpretation of John 21 should be discounted by the fact that St Paul, in the position of all the Apostles, uses the same terminology in Scripture when passing the Church to the bishops.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Napoletani on March 22, 2013, 09:35:31 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)


Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

In direct contradiction with Vatican I:

 For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood


Do you see that? and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors

for ever he lives in his successors. If there isnt a successor anymore, and forever, bye bye Vatican I.

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors


I guess according to you perpetual does not mean perpetual.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 12:32:36 PM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied :P
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2013, 02:37:40 PM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied :P
Heck ya I was.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied :P
Heck ya I was.
Is one out-done living on the edge if someone jumps off the cliff?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 12:18:14 AM
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)


Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]


I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me ,  I attend the ukranian  catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne  liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?
I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

In direct contradiction with Vatican I:

 For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood


Do you see that? and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors

for ever he lives in his successors. If there isnt a successor anymore, and forever, bye bye Vatican I.

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors


I guess according to you perpetual does not mean perpetual.
no you are wrong
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf

That what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) remains the perpetual principle
and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND WHEN THERE IS NO POPE, is proven
every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the
Catholic Faith.
The Catholic (who is a sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the
Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t accept what Christ
instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not accepting what the successors
of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history (the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example
of how the Office of the Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle
of visible unity, distinguishing the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the
false). This is true when there is no pope, and for the sedevacantist today. This dogmatic
teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a pope and it is not contrary to the
sedevacantist thesis in any way.


In fact, while this definition remains true for the sedevacantist, it must be stated clearly that THIS
DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ONLY REMAINS TRUE FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST. THIS
DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON THE PAPACY BEING THE PERPETUAL PRINCIPLE AND
VISIBLE FOUNDATION OF UNITY IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT TRUE FOR THOSE UNDER
BENEDICT XVI. This teaching of Vatican I only remains true for the sedevacantist (not those
under Benedict XVI) because Vatican II teaches just the opposite:
Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (# 15):
“For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though
baptized and so honoured with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety
or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.” 43
We see that Vatican II teaches that the Papacy is not the visible foundation of the unities of faith
and communion. It teaches that those who reject the Papacy are in communion with the Church.
Since this is the official teaching of the Vatican II sect and its antipopes, those who adhere to them
contradict the above teaching of Vatican I.
Second, the teaching of Vatican I on the perpetuity of the Papal Office only remains true for the
sedevacantist because Benedict XVI explicitly teaches that accepting the Papacy is not essential
for unity!
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “On the part of the West,
the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of
Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in
practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches... As regards
Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the
Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants
be converted to Catholicism;... none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of
unity.” 44
We’ve already shown – but it was necessary to quote it again here – that Benedict XVI specifically
mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the
Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith and accept Vatican I
(“the full scope of the definition of 1870”) for unity and salvation. He specifically rejects that the
dogmatic definition of Vatican I (accepting the Papacy, etc.) is binding for Church unity. Besides
the fact that this is another clear example of manifest heresy from the Vatican II antipopes, this
proves that BENEDICT XVI (THE MAN THEY ACTUALLY CLAIM IS THE “POPE”) DENIES
THE VERY DOGMA FROM VATICAN I THAT THIS OBJECTION BRINGS FORWARD!
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 23, 2013, 12:21:54 AM
This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  ;D

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied :P
Heck ya I was.
Is one out-done living on the edge if someone jumps off the cliff?

This one really made me laugh hard  :D
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 12:26:49 AM
makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.
this coming from someone who says Peter isn't the rock in Matthew 16
Argue with the Fathers. That we don't tow your ultramontanist line isn't our problem.

You going to say Peter isn't Satan in Matthew 16?
Peter alone isn't given the keys
That's right. So say the Fathers.
and the fact that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 should be discounted since Paul uses the same terminology  when addressing the bishops.....
no, your ultramontanist misinterpretation of John 21 should be discounted by the fact that St Paul, in the position of all the Apostles, uses the same terminology in Scripture when passing the Church to the bishops.
No , your sad attempt to refute John 21 should be discounted as there is no logic in your argument, Catholics know the word is used elsewhere as in 1 Pet 5:2, that does not change the fact that Jesus ordered St Peter to rule his sheep, your argument would have merit if the catholic position was the bishops had no power what so ever.

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html

Therefore, like Jesus, Peter is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the supreme pastor of the Church in Christ’s physical absence” [This term is also used to describe the rule of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Pet 5:2].

The primacy of Peter is underlined by Scripture. In the Gospels and the first half of the Acts of the Apostles, Peter is the dominant personality. He is spoken of 191 times, while according to Archbishop Fulton Sheen, all the other apostles together are spoken of only 130 times (John is second to Peter with 48 mentions). Peter is always listed first when a list of the Apostles is given (e.g., Mt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 16:14) and even the angel tells Mary Magdalene to go and tell “His disciples and Peter” that He is risen. Paul informs us in 1 Cor 15:5 that Jesus appeared first to Kephas, then to the twelve. In Acts 1, it is Peter who calls for the filling of the office [episkopos], or as the King James versions translates it, the “bishopric” of Judas. In Acts 2, Peter exercises primacy again on Pentecost when he becomes the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church age, explaining the speaking in tongues as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2. In Acts 3, he performs the first miracle of the Church age when he heals the lame man and in Acts 4, after being arrested with John for preaching the Resurrection, Peter “filled with the Holy Spirit” speaks boldly in front of the Sanhedrin. In Act 5, Peter’s very shadow produces miracle after miracle for faith filled persons. Later in Acts 5, Peter prophesies, in turn, the immediate deaths of converts Ananias and his wife Sapphira, for holding back some of the proceeds from their property, which they alleged to have given entirely to the Church. Peter said they lied, not to him, but “to the Holy Spirit.” This was the first anathema. Peter is the first to refute heresy, when Simon Magus proposes the power to give the Holy Spirit be given him in Acts 8 and the first after Christ to raise a man from the dead in Acts 9:40.

In Acts 10, Peter exercises the power to bind and to loose by admitting the first Gentiles into the Church (Cornelius) after receiving a vision from Jesus to do so. Although some objections were raised at the thought of admitting the unclean Gentiles, Peter’s explanation was accepted by the other Apostles in Acts 11–-the Church was now Catholic (which means "universal"). In Acts 15, Peter annunciates another dogma, declaring that Jewish Christians need not follow the Law of Moses as regards circumcision, which is accepted by the first Church Council at Jerusalem "in silence" and without debate and sent out by letter to the Churches as the “decision of the Holy Spirit.” Other examples could be cited but I think the point is made that the papacy is biblically based and derived from the primacy of St. Peter. Subsequent expressions of humility by Peter (e.g., 1 Pet 5:1-3 where he refers to himself as a "fellow elder") do not negate the primacy he was given by the Lord Jesus, but rather are a reflection of divine injunction, "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you."

In the Great Commission of Mt 28: 16-20, Jesus told the Apostles to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, to the close of the age.'" The office of the bishops and primacy of the Bishop of Rome or Pope, as he was later called, were to continue. This is evident in the writings of the early Church Fathers. St. Clement, the third Pope, writing to the Corinthians about 80 A.D. concerning a dispute over removing some of the clergy, noted, “"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appoint[ed] those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 12:35:15 AM

I don't know the specifics about St Isaac, what I do know is that the Catholic Church teaches thee is no salvation outside the church, do you believe jews can be saved?

If they're baptised and christian, why not?

Ultimately, we do not know who gets saved or not.  There is only one judge, and we don't get to tell Him what to do.
the jew , muslim hindu etc who is not baptised, is there a chance they can be saved?
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: choy on March 23, 2013, 12:36:24 AM
the jew , muslim hindu etc who is not baptised, is there a chance they can be saved?

There is a chance everyone can be saved.
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 12:37:33 AM
Donatism?

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin.  But a heretic is thrown out of the Church.  I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not?  And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?
the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of the
Holy See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone who
has been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can be
rejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and
define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as
has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his
promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the
Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
power...
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Who determines if a bishop has fallen into heresy? Is it the Dimond brothers?
The authority a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the Church is
Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from the Faith are considered alien to the
Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND
ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE
FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE
MAGISTERIUM.” 7
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 12:40:12 AM
the jew , muslim hindu etc who is not baptised, is there a chance they can be saved?

There is a chance everyone can be saved.
you better do some reading

God has already revealed His judgment to us.  To say that one cannot be
sure or “cannot judge” if all who die as non‐Catholics go to hell is simply to reject
God’s judgment as possibly untrue, which is heresy and blasphemy and pride of the
worst kind.  It is to sinfully judge as possibly worthy of Heaven those whom God has
explicitly revealed He will not save.  To put it simply: to say that one cannot judge that
all who die as non‐Catholics go to Hell (when God has revealed this) is to judge in the
most gravely sinful way – in a way directly contrary to God’s revealed truth and
revealed judgment.
 
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,
cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for
the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their
lives...”447

 the great St. Francis
Xavier shows how a Catholic must affirm that all those who die outside the Church are
definitely lost, as he does in regard to a pagan privateer who died on a ship on which he
was traveling.
 
St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima.  He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished... He
himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the
power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other
friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell,
where there is no redemption.”448
 

In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5, and writes: 
 
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive;
for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”119
 
     This statement is obviously a paraphrase of John 3:5, and thus it demonstrates that
from the very beginning of the apostolic age it was held and taught by the fathers that
no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit based specifically on
Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration in John 3:5.
 
In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:
 
“... they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn
in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn... in the name of
God... they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn,
you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we
have learned from the apostles.”120
Title: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: stanley123 on March 23, 2013, 12:46:55 AM
Donatism?

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin.  But a heretic is thrown out of the Church.  I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not?  And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?
the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of the
Holy See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone who
has been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can be
rejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and
define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as
has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his
promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the
Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
power...
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Who determines if a bishop has fallen into heresy? Is it the Dimond brothers?
The authority a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the Church is
Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from the Faith are considered alien to the
Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND
ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE
FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE
MAGISTERIUM.” 7
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Who makes the determination that someone is a heretic? Is it the Dimond brothers?
Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic and she says that Francis is the Pope. Why should I believe the Dimond brothers over what Nancy Pelosi says?
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Kra-nion on May 13, 2013, 11:59:48 AM
#....Ignatius didn't make it in holy scripture...ya know why?......didacha ...didn't make it,ya know why?..........knot rite?.... the priest don't own the church, there servants......a priest is a majesty, get two priests and twice the majesty, a high priest is a great majesty;;....so...[ who's majesty is greater,...all the added majesty of the high priest at christ trial....or.......the majesty of there king? ] .........?/...christ described a kingdom, ig. a priestdom................then  ..christ sent his apos. to all ethnic,  did. is anti-apos.,...../.........we are not promised all good shephards, nor good householders.......the priest are to serve the kingdoms.....honour the king ...the king is supreme./..what makes the priesthood royal is thay serve a royal family.....continuity is of the royal bloodline of the people..........god raises up the generations of old.....................the Sanhedrin through away there royal line............WhatDidYouDoToYourRuler?..rom.chap.13
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: mike on May 13, 2013, 02:13:13 PM
Why do you write your posts in Assembler?
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Keble on May 13, 2013, 04:22:05 PM
Looks more like a badly written Perl script to me.
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: biro on May 13, 2013, 05:40:00 PM
#....Ignatius didn't make it in holy scripture...ya know why?......didacha ...didn't make it,ya know why?..........knot rite?.... the priest don't own the church, there servants......a priest is a majesty, get two priests and twice the majesty, a high priest is a great majesty;;....so...[ who's majesty is greater,...all the added majesty of the high priest at christ trial....or.......the majesty of there king? ] .........?/...christ described a kingdom, ig. a priestdom................then  ..christ sent his apos. to all ethnic,  did. is anti-apos.,...../.........we are not promised all good shephards, nor good householders.......the priest are to serve the kingdoms.....honour the king ...the king is supreme./..what makes the priesthood royal is thay serve a royal family.....continuity is of the royal bloodline of the people..........god raises up the generations of old.....................the Sanhedrin through away there royal line............WhatDidYouDoToYourRuler?..rom.chap.13

What?  ???
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: primuspilus on May 14, 2013, 12:54:26 PM
#....Ignatius didn't make it in holy scripture...ya know why?......didacha ...didn't make it,ya know why?..........knot rite?.... the priest don't own the church, there servants......a priest is a majesty, get two priests and twice the majesty, a high priest is a great majesty;;....so...[ who's majesty is greater,...all the added majesty of the high priest at christ trial....or.......the majesty of there king? ] .........?/...christ described a kingdom, ig. a priestdom................then  ..christ sent his apos. to all ethnic,  did. is anti-apos.,...../.........we are not promised all good shephards, nor good householders.......the priest are to serve the kingdoms.....honour the king ...the king is supreme./..what makes the priesthood royal is thay serve a royal family.....continuity is of the royal bloodline of the people..........god raises up the generations of old.....................the Sanhedrin through away there royal line............WhatDidYouDoToYourRuler?..rom.chap.13
(http://cdn5.alifeonyourterms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dafuq1.jpg)
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: Clemente on May 14, 2013, 05:34:34 PM
#....Ignatius didn't make it in holy scripture...ya know why?......didacha ...didn't make it,ya know why?..........knot rite?.... the priest don't own the church, there servants......a priest is a majesty, get two priests and twice the majesty, a high priest is a great majesty;;....so...[ who's majesty is greater,...all the added majesty of the high priest at christ trial....or.......the majesty of there king? ] .........?/...christ described a kingdom, ig. a priestdom................then  ..christ sent his apos. to all ethnic,  did. is anti-apos.,...../.........we are not promised all good shephards, nor good householders.......the priest are to serve the kingdoms.....honour the king ...the king is supreme./..what makes the priesthood royal is thay serve a royal family.....continuity is of the royal bloodline of the people..........god raises up the generations of old.....................the Sanhedrin through away there royal line............WhatDidYouDoToYourRuler?..rom.chap.13

Are you doing that Rasta thing?
Title: Re: Discussion between some different Catholic groups
Post by: hecma925 on December 18, 2013, 08:30:49 AM
#....Ignatius didn't make it in holy scripture...ya know why?......didacha ...didn't make it,ya know why?..........knot rite?.... the priest don't own the church, there servants......a priest is a majesty, get two priests and twice the majesty, a high priest is a great majesty;;....so...[ who's majesty is greater,...all the added majesty of the high priest at christ trial....or.......the majesty of there king? ] .........?/...christ described a kingdom, ig. a priestdom................then  ..christ sent his apos. to all ethnic,  did. is anti-apos.,...../.........we are not promised all good shephards, nor good householders.......the priest are to serve the kingdoms.....honour the king ...the king is supreme./..what makes the priesthood royal is thay serve a royal family.....continuity is of the royal bloodline of the people..........god raises up the generations of old.....................the Sanhedrin through away there royal line............WhatDidYouDoToYourRuler?..rom.chap.13

Are you doing that Rasta thing?

Everyting gon be irie
Just honor da king
da king be supreme