OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 08:25:19 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 3235 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2013, 09:14:11 PM »


 Grin

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

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

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

Whatever may be done by smiling, you may rely on me to do.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #46 on: March 10, 2013, 09:15:34 PM »

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

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

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

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

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  Huh
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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #47 on: March 11, 2013, 05:53:30 AM »

....we know the vatican is clearly anti catholic,  all post vatican 2 popes are heretics and are ipsofcto severed from the true catholic church
Since the Vatican is not catholic, where do we find the "true catholic church"? Who are the bishops of the "true catholic church"?
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

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

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

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

In fact, sedes simply recognize the truth in St Gregory the Great statement, that if the universal head falls, then the whole body does. And so Sede have no bishop, no head, nothing.
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #48 on: March 11, 2013, 06:01:30 AM »

Quote


 Grin

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

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

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

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

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

So before you start arguing about St Peter and so on, try to fix your position by your own church criterias.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 06:01:57 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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2013, 06:06:13 AM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  Cheesy
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #50 on: March 11, 2013, 07:19:25 AM »

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

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

Since your seat is vacant, with no means to fill it, according to Pastor Aeternus you have ceased to be the church.
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: 37,124



« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2013, 11:48:07 AM »

First, less smiling, more learning how to work the quote feature. Grin

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


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

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

your explanation
not mine, the Fathers'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John 21:15-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

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

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

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

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

John 21:15-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2013, 02:04:30 PM »

Why should we accept a non-existing (according to you) Papacy? That would be the height of folly.
what folly? are you catholic?

Well, no.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2013, 02:07:07 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2013, 02:10:13 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin

But the same bull said that only those subject to the Roman Pontiff are saved.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2013, 02:11:01 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin

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

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

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #56 on: March 11, 2013, 02:13:36 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin

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

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

Although the word "head" has been used by the Orthodox to describe the bishops.  Of course in RC ecclesiology it bears a different meaning because all are subject to this one head, whereas in Orthodoxy all the heads are equal, meaning they are not to be confused with the headship of Christ.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2013, 02:31:42 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin
The bishop should not be the head of the diocese. Christ should. The priest should not be the head of the parish, Christ should.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #58 on: March 11, 2013, 02:44:22 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

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

I remember that not too long ago I said the same myself  Smiley
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2013, 04:00:36 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

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

I remember that not too long ago I said the same myself  Smiley
Truth is truth.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2013, 06:56:45 PM »

Truth is truth.  Cheesy
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.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #61 on: March 11, 2013, 07:12:04 PM »

Truth is truth.  Cheesy
Sometimes truth is not what it seems. Take for example, the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise time would flow backwards. People have been trying to figure out how that can be true when quantum entanglement experiments apparently show it is not true. Of take the traditional truth, backed up by St. Paul,  that women should wear headcovering while praying in Church. This had been the tradition of the Church for almost two thousand years, but not now.
Good to see you here Stanley. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #62 on: March 11, 2013, 07:43:46 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin

I knew there was something I liked about Unam Sanctum. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2013, 08:28:43 PM »




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


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

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

John 21:15-17

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

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

yes it does


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

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


 

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


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

I
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

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



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

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

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





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

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

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


sorry


 


Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #64 on: March 11, 2013, 08:37:45 PM »

sedevacantist, if you're going to quote someone, you should make it clear what the quotation is and what your own words are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #65 on: March 11, 2013, 08:40:57 PM »

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

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

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

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

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


Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #66 on: March 11, 2013, 08:44:26 PM »

sedevacantist, if you're going to quote someone, you should make it clear what the quotation is and what your own words are.
I'm not good when there are so many quotes to make things clear, I tried to remove certain passages as it was too long but afterwards I see it didn't come out right...
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #67 on: March 11, 2013, 08:47:45 PM »

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

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

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

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

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  Huh
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?
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #68 on: March 11, 2013, 08:49:42 PM »

if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope

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

Posts: 208


« Reply #69 on: March 11, 2013, 08:59:21 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

Just like we Orthodoxs believe in Rome primacy, but since he went in heresy and schism, he ceased to be the head of the Church. Goodbye  Cheesy
no need to say goodbye as I never said hello to you, and you don' know what you are talking about
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #70 on: March 11, 2013, 09:13:23 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2013, 09:18:01 PM »

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

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

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

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

So, do you receive communion from a priest whom you regard as a heretic?  Huh
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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,017


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2013, 09:28:56 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

Doppelganger perhaps?  Cheesy

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2013, 10:33:33 PM »

....you don' know what you are talking about
Does anyone on this thread or, more generally, in either the R. Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church today know what they are talking about (except for you of course).
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2013, 10:35:22 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

Doppelganger perhaps? Cheesy



Only if he starts breaking out the maps.  Wink Grin
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 10:35:52 PM by LBK » Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2013, 10:47:14 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

Doppelganger perhaps? Cheesy



Only if he starts breaking out the maps.  Wink Grin

reaching into the memory vault, but show me a map of Rusynia or Carpathia lol, that's an old joke a few of us posters used to tease about years ago.
Logged

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: 37,124



« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

Truth is truth.  Cheesy
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?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #77 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #78 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

Doppelganger? Like this?

http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/thumb/c/c5/Doppelganger442px.jpg/406px-Doppelganger442px.jpg
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: 37,124



« Reply #79 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin

I knew there was something I liked about Unam Sanctum. Smiley
Its heresy.
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: 37,124



« Reply #80 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

if so you must accept that the seat is vacant because the catholic church teaches a heretic can not be pope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, when did Pope John XXIII/XXIV become a notorious heretic according to you?  Given that he was validly elected according to your supreme pontiff Pius XII.
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: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »




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


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

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

John 21:15-17

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

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

yes it does


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

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


 

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


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

I
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

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



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

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

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





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

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

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


sorry


 



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

sorry
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: 37,124



« Reply #82 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously
exalted in the sight of all doubters.” 39
If you could put the cardinals of 1958 on life support or freeze them through kryogenics, you'd have a way out.  But they those dry bones won't live and give you a pope.
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: 37,124



« Reply #83 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

From sedevacantist's source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Quote
That what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) remains the perpetual principle and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND WHEN THERE IS NO POPE, is proven every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic (who is a sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t accept what Christ instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not accepting what the successors of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history (the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example of how the Office of the Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle of visible unity, distinguishing the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the false). This is true when there is no pope, and for the sedevacantist today. This dogmatic teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a pope and it is not contrary to the sedevacantist thesis in any way
"schismatic" LOL.

I wonder what "Eastern Schismatic" is foolish enough to embrace sedevantism.
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 #84 on: March 12, 2013, 06:44:45 AM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

 Grin

That Christ is the head does not mean there is another head derived from him, just like Christ being the Rock does not mean Peter is not. And i dont need unam sanctam, i'm not rc but orthodox.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #85 on: March 12, 2013, 01:12:27 PM »

So there hasn't been a serious antipope since the middle ages, and you, sedevacantist, have the presumption to set yourself against your bishops? Why don't you just become a Protestant and get it over with?

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

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

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

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

I remember that not too long ago I said the same myself  Smiley
Truth is truth.  Cheesy

It's always harder to argue against your own arguments  Cheesy
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #86 on: March 12, 2013, 01:34:41 PM »

I wonder what "Eastern Schismatic" is foolish enough to embrace sedevantism.

Maybe Old Believers?  I know of an ultra-trad SSPXer whom I asked if he is interested in Orthodoxy.  Briefly "flirted" with it but he wanted to become an Old Believer.  I guess such a mentality runs in the blood.
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,017


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 12, 2013, 02:24:42 PM »

From sedevacantist's source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Quote
That what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) remains the perpetual principle and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND WHEN THERE IS NO POPE, is proven every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic (who is a sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t accept what Christ instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not accepting what the successors of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history (the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example of how the Office of the Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle of visible unity, distinguishing the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the false). This is true when there is no pope, and for the sedevacantist today. This dogmatic teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a pope and it is not contrary to the sedevacantist thesis in any way
"schismatic" LOL.

I wonder what "Eastern Schismatic" is foolish enough to embrace sedevantism.


Just reading a couple of pages of that pdf is enough to make your head spin. It's akin to reading a commentary on the Federal Tax Code.....
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 02:25:23 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #88 on: March 12, 2013, 02:37:43 PM »

The sacramental life of sedevacantists...

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

Quote
As none of their members were ordained into the priesthood, and as they believe that the New Mass is invalid and that the Tridentine Mass (promoted by Benedict XVI) is compromised by the 1962 Missal changes made by John XXIII, they receive the sacraments from a Byzantine rite Catholic Church that is in communion with the Vatican, in Rochester, New York. During these occasions they wear layman's clothes in lieu of their Benedictine habits. Peter Dimond wrote: "In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I've received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces."
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,017


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2013, 02:45:03 PM »

 That group has two (2) members per Wikipedia.  Huh Why do we care what they think?
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 0.279 seconds with 74 queries.