OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 11:37:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Discussion between some different Catholic groups  (Read 3435 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #270 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?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #271 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
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #272 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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #273 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.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 09:37:11 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #274 on: March 22, 2013, 12:32:36 PM »

This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  Grin

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied Tongue
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #275 on: March 22, 2013, 02:37:40 PM »

This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  Grin

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied Tongue
Heck ya I was.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #276 on: March 22, 2013, 05:04:55 PM »

This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  Grin

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied Tongue
Heck ya I was.
Is one out-done living on the edge if someone jumps off the cliff?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #277 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!
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #278 on: March 23, 2013, 12:21:54 AM »

This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."  Grin

Aw, what gave it away?

Papist was out-traddied Tongue
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  Cheesy
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #279 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.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #280 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?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #281 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.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #282 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
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #283 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
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #284 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?
Logged
Kra-nion
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: 'Old Faith Orthodox' { in catholic communion }
Jurisdiction: ;those to whom Sts. Cyril & Methodius went;
Posts: 16


« Reply #285 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
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #286 on: May 13, 2013, 02:13:13 PM »

Why do you write your posts in Assembler?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,396



« Reply #287 on: May 13, 2013, 04:22:05 PM »

Looks more like a badly written Perl script to me.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 12,987


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #288 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?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #289 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
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #290 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?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #291 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
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.145 seconds with 50 queries.