Topic: Discussion between some different Catholic groups

[sedevacantist]

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):

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.”

[sedevacantist]

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

[sedevacantist]

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

[sedevacantist]

....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."

[sedevacantist]

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.

[orthros]

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?

[stanley123]

Truth is truth. 

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?

[stanley123]

....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.

[Maria]

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

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

[stanley123]

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.

[Maria]

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.

[Napoletani]

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.

[Napoletani]

Truth is truth. 

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.

[Napoletani]

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[Peter J]

also John 23 kissing the koran

No, but John Paul II did.

[erimos]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

Truth is truth. 

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.

[Papist]

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.

[stanley123]

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.

[stanley123]

Truth is truth. 

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

[podkarpatska]

Truth is truth.  

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.

[erimos]

This post is just a bowl of sunshine.

You are bowl of sunshine, you make me happy every day!

[choy]

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.

[sedevacantist]

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.

[sedevacantist]

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?

[sedevacantist]

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?

[stanley123]

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).

[stanley123]

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.

[choy]

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?

[Peter J]

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.)

[stanley123]

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.

[Papist]

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?

[Papist]

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.

[ialmisry]

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!

[sedevacantist]

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 

[sedevacantist]

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

[sedevacantist]

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

[choy]

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.

[sedevacantist]

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


 

[SolEX01]

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.

[choy]

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]

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.