No Pope

[piouswoman]

You have already given me that document, and I did not use the argument of the Council being Pastoral verses Dogmatic. What I said is that the Council is valid, which not even this document addresses. The document hinges on the idea that the Council is invalid due to it not being dogmatic and therefore possibly in error. That argument would work, if not for the fact that an Ecumenical Council by its nature is guided by the Holy Spirit, dating back to the First Council of Jerusalem. The main drive of the article is based on faulty logic that does not follow. It would be if I said “Night time is dark. The devil is the prince of darkness. Night time is a product of the devil.” This logic requires you to believe that there is a connection with the darkness of night and the evil that the devil causes, but is contradicted by Genesis calling the night good. If the Council Fathers and the Pope called it good and asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how can we think any different?

On Vatican II:

The Cardinals knew that at a doctrinal Council the Modernist bishops would prolong the discussion of definitions endlessly and that such a Council would never end. It was decided that Vatican II would be a pastoral Council. (Fr. R. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books, p. 20). The fact that Vatican II was a pastoral Council and all the other Ecumenical Church Councils in the Church were doctrinal, makes all the difference in the world.

and:

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church’s day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

geocities.com/catholic_profide/renew2.html

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

NicPais hit the nail on the head. To deny the validity of Vatican Council II, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is to effectively deny the validity of ALL previous Ecumenical Councils, since the Holy Spirit’s guidance had been invoked when each was convened. I would not dare to believe that the Holy Spirit was sleeping at the wheel when Vatican Council II was held, any more than He had during the previous 20 Councils. To hold to such an erroneous notion potentially puts one at dangerous odds with the Church.

After all, doesn’t the Holy Spirit still guide and protect the Catholic Church even today? Or did He suddenly remove Himself from the Church when now-Blessed John XXIII ascended to the papal throne? I do think that would run counter to Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would remain with Christ’s Church and His people for all time.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Have you forgotten the very words of Our Lord?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

What are you proud of? That the conciliar popes have said there is salvation in other faiths? If that is true, then why did Our Lord die an ignominious death upon the wood of the Holy Cross for the salvation of souls? They are denying, in their puffed up modernist minds, the words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The pope may only teach that which is grounded in DOGMA. He may NOT decide to teach a modern and liberal understanding of salvation of souls which is derived from the very bowels of a weak and sickly sweet nature that holds “political correctness” as its god.

It is through Christ, that is the great message! The Good News! Through Christ and His Church, the graces for salvation flow. You are missing this through and through! God’s Mercy is beyond our greatest imagination, and yet he is giving us a glimpse of it.

I don’t think that it can be explained any clearer than JR has posted above. And in English at that.

 

[JReducation]

We have to be very careful. To claim that Pope Benedict “is a modernist through and through” is to claim that he is a heretic.

If that is the case, then the chair of Peter is empty. That goes back to the original post. Can there be a time without a pope? This alleation would imply that we are living such a time.

This is dangerous. Sedevacantism is serious business. Not only is it prohibitted by CAF rules, but it is a grave moral claim

I doubt that St. Pius X would have made such a statement about a man who has lived a holy life and is struggling to bring unity to the Church.

St. Pius X was not canonized because of his encyclical against modernism, but because of his intense life of holiness, which included charity, humility, truth, justice, mercy and prudence in his judgements.

Even when he wrote his encyclical he was also making changes in the Church that would make it easier for people to find salvation. His concern was not with rules, but with his duties as the successor of St. Peter. It was his fidelity to this vocation that made him a great saint.

He would probably look at the Vatican II popes and see their fidelity to their duties and praise them for their effort, even if their approach is different.

In addition, one common thing about saints is there show of charity toward all, even those whom they may consider to be in error. To a saint, an apparent sinner is his brother.

Saint Teresa of Avila once said that she would never in her life want to consider herself or call herself pious, unless she was a Pope. When asked why, she responded that her mission was not to save her soul, but to serve Christ and the Church. The salvation of her soul was in Christ’s hand. If she undertook the salvation of her soul as her vocation, she would be in conflict with Christ. “Christ did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at, but he humbled himself to become one of us.” This was her model. Her mission was to be a daughter of the Church, not a saint.

Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton shied away from being called a pious woman. She said that she was a mother first and a daughter of the Church.

Saint Louise de Marillac shied away from all signs of piety and gravitated toward the perfection of mercy and charity.

I believe these great woman knew something about being holy that we have missed.

JR

 

[NicPais83]

On Vatican II:

The Cardinals knew that at a doctrinal Council the Modernist bishops would prolong the discussion of definitions endlessly and that such a Council would never end. It was decided that Vatican II would be a pastoral Council. (Fr. R. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books, p. 20). The fact that Vatican II was a pastoral Council and all the other Ecumenical Church Councils in the Church were doctrinal, makes all the difference in the world.

and:

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church’s day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

geocities.com/catholic_profide/renew2.html

We are going in circles here because I have already addressed all of this. The statement in bold DOES NOT FOLLOW, as the whole paragraph is the opinion of the author and not backed up by an appropriate Church document. Again, an example would be if I had an exam today that was multiple choice, and another tomorrow that was true or false. The fact that the one tomorrow is true or false does not negate the fact that it is overall an exam. Not even the citation by Fr. Wiltgen reinforces anything that follows, as his citation does not go any further than stating what the Cardinals, i.e. the Princes of the Church had thought.

 

[JReducation]

Have you forgotten the very words of Our Lord?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

What are you proud of? That the conciliar popes have said there is salvation in other faiths? If that is true, then why did Our Lord die an ignominious death upon the wood of the Holy Cross for the salvation of souls? They are denying, in their puffed up modernist minds, the words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The pope may only teach that which is grounded in DOGMA. He may NOT decide to teach a modern and liberal understanding of salvation of souls which is derived from the very bowels of a weak and sickly sweet nature that holds “political correctness” as its god.

They are not denying what Jesus said. They are finding the spirit of Jesus in other faiths. Therefore, the words of Jesus still hold true. Jesus is doing the saving. Not the popes.

Also, where is the authoritative decree that the popes are wrong?

There is no bishops council that has decreed this.

Unless we have such a council, we have no ground to stand on. Individuals cannot declare popes to be in error. They may question, they may disagree, they may even believe this for themselves. But they cannot teach this to others, because the individual does not have the authority to make this kind of decree.

I don’t have it, neither do you. Therefore, I can believe in my conscience and you can too. But we cannot teach what we believe as a fact, only as our opinion.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

NicPais hit the nail on the head. To deny the validity of Vatican Council II, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is to effectively deny the validity of ALL previous Ecumenical Councils, since the Holy Spirit’s guidance had been invoked when each was convened. I would not dare to believe that the Holy Spirit was sleeping at the wheel when Vatican Council II was held, any more than He had during the previous 20 Councils. To hold to such an erroneous notion potentially puts one at dangerous odds with the Church.

After all, doesn’t the Holy Spirit still guide and protect the Catholic Church even today? Or did He suddenly remove Himself from the Church when now-Blessed John XXIII ascended to the papal throne? I do think that would run counter to Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would remain with Christ’s Church and His people for all time.

You would think this would be clear…

Our very faith in Christ’s Church depends on this and yet it is tossed out the window in order to justify an agenda.

 

[JReducation]

Vatican II was a *“pastoral” *council and did not intend to define dogma or to condemn errors.
sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm

SSPX is not an authoritative body within the Catholic Church. Therefore, they can say what they want. But it holds no authority.

For us to believe this we need to hear it from an authoritativ body, not an individual or group.

The Gnostics believed the Church was wrong too. But they had no authority.

JR

 

[NicPais83]

SSPX is not an authoritative body within the Catholic Church. Therefore, they can say what they want. But it holds no authority.

For us to believe this we need to hear it from an authoritativ body, not an individual or group.

The Gnostics believed the Church was wrong too. But they had no authority.

JR

I agree. There is a scent of gnosticism in the air when we question the truth and look for hidden meanings. Gnosticism taught that there was a secret truth that was kept from us. I am afraid that if we accuse each other and the greater Bride of Christ of distorting or hiding the truth, we are not far from falling prey to the same egotism that sought to win souls from Christ’s Church. This is a tactic that the devil seems to enjoy in extremists of both sides, in order to cause doubt in the institution that Christ Himself founded and sanctified with His own Blood.

 

[JReducation]

I agree. There is a scent of gnosticism in the air when we question the truth and look for hidden meanings. Gnosticism taught that there was a secret truth that was kept from us. I am afraid that if we accuse each other and the greater Bride of Christ of distorting or hiding the truth, we are not far from falling prey to the same egotism that sought to win souls from Christ’s Church. This is a tactic that the devil seems to enjoy in extremists of both sides, in order to cause doubt in the institution that Christ Himself founded and sanctified with His own Blood.

I can see this tactic at work here. The OP was a simple question. “Can there be a church run by bishops without a pope?”

All of a sudden we have this derailment that casts aspersions on the integrity, honesty, morality and even validy of individual popes.

JR

 

[First_of_9]

Here, let me throw out a few quotes for you:

WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD…RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. - Leo XIII, “Diuturnum Illud”

Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ
BUT
if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public - Galatians 2:11-14

God through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience
BUT
in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits - Galatians 1:8-9

According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

• St. Thomas Aquinas,
  Doctor of the Church
• Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104

But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

Please, spare me the false notion that we must blindly obey error…it is the DUTY of a Catholic to KNOW ONES FAITH, AND REFUSE TO FOLLOW ERROR…AMEN.

I’m sorry, but this sounds more Martin Luther than Catholic. The Individual has become the arbitrator of orthodoxy rather than the Church and the Vicar of Christ.

It also sounds very Fundamentalist with the cherry picking of quotes and the private interpretation of Scripture.

 

[JReducation]

For clarification, when I said before that today’s popes have found that the spirit of Christ uses other ecclesial communities as a means to salvation, this is not opposed to outside the Church there is no salvation.

That statement was made within a greater context. The whole context is that other ecclesial communities enjoy some kind of union with the Catholic Church, even if it’s a spiritual union through our belief in the same God, same scriptures, same Jesus Christ, one baptism or whatever Catholic truth can be found in them.

They can be used as a means of salvation, because they possess some element of the Catholic Church.

I realize that analogies always have a weakness and so does this one, but it’s the best that I can use.

If my great great great grandfather and I are not immediate relatives, the fact that I have some of his genes, makes me a relative, a part of his family.

There may not be a full union or relationship, but there is something of my great great great grandfather in me.

The holy fathers say that there is something of the Catholic Church that exists in many other faiths. Since salvation can only come through the Catholic Church, whatever “catholic gene” is there can be used as a means of salvation, because nothing is impossible for God.

It’s a metaphysical explanation, not a modernist one. Modernism doesn’t even acknowledge metaphysics. Catholicism does. Benedict XVI uses it all the time when he speaks.

He used it when he spoke about the United States being worthy of praise, because in its attempt to be a secular state it actually opened the door to true faith, because no one is practicing their faith because of civil law, but because they choose to do so. This is another example metaphysics being used to explain a reality that is difficult to see.

The Catholic Church is thus present even in situations where one wouldn’t imagine, if one looks deeply enough. It may be a tiny particle, but that’s all that God needs to exercise his mercy.

It’s not the long-term solution that Christ wants. But Christ is so desperate to save us, that he uses whatever grace is available. All grace comes into the world through him and flows into the world by the very presence of the Church, even to those who do not yet accept her.

JR

 

[NicPais83]

For clarification, when I said before that today’s popes have found that the spirit of Christ uses other ecclesial communities as a means to salvation, this is not opposed to outside the Church there is no salvation.

That statement was made within a greater context. The whole context is that other ecclesial communities enjoy some kind of union with the Catholic Church, even if it’s a spiritual union through our belief in the same God, same scriptures, same Jesus Christ, one baptism or whatever Catholic truth can be found in them.

They can be used as a means of salvation, because they possess some element of the Catholic Church.

I realize that analogies always have a weakness and so does this one, but it’s the best that I can use.

If my great great great grandfather and I are not immediate relatives, the fact that I have some of his genes, makes me a relative, a part of his family.

There may not be a full union or relationship, but there is something of my great great great grandfather in me.

The holy fathers say that there is something of the Catholic Church that exists in many other faiths. Since salvation can only come through the Catholic Church, whatever “catholic gene” is there can be used as a means of salvation, because nothing is impossible for God.

It’s a metaphysical explanation, not a modernist one. Modernism doesn’t even acknowledge metaphysics. Catholicism does. Benedict XVI uses it all the time when he speaks.

He used it when he spoke about the United States being worthy of praise, because in its attempt to be a secular state it actually opened the door to true faith, because no one is practicing their faith because of civil law, but because they choose to do so. This is another example metaphysics being used to explain a reality that is difficult to see.

The Catholic Church is thus present even in situations where one wouldn’t imagine, if one looks deeply enough. It may be a tiny particle, but that’s all that God needs to exercise his mercy.

It’s not the long-term solution that Christ wants. But Christ is so desperate to save us, that he uses whatever grace is available. All grace comes into the world through him and flows into the world by the very presence of the Church, even to those who do not yet accept her.

JR

That really wasn’t a bad analogy at all.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry, but this sounds more Martin Luther than Catholic. The Individual has become the arbitrator of orthodoxy rather than the Church and the Vicar of Christ.

It also sounds very Fundamentalist with the cherry picking of quotes and the private interpretation of Scripture.

I agree with you, First. It also sounds like Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed they could arrive at a knowledge of the truth without the leadership of the temporal Church.

It is inconsistent with what Pope Benedict said when he was in the United States and in other places. Faith and reason must go hand in hand.

When you cite from the Bible and interpret it yourself, you are not using reason that is normative. You’re applying your reason.

Reason is not private, neither is revelation, nor are the scriptures.

They are shared by all, interpreted by the Magisterium.

The other problem here is the argument that God must be obeyed above human authority. This runs the risk of forgetting the the authority given to Peter comes from God and “he who hears you hears me”. It not the other way around.

Jesus did not say that he had to be consulted first to make sure that Peter was right.

He was saying that Peter must be heard, because Jesus speaks through him.

Even though we understand the doctrine of infallibility, there is also the ordinary teaching authority of the Holy Father. Luther forgot this little detail.

Today many people, even some Lutheran scholars, question Luther’s mental health, not his soul, but his mind. He was bright and he was right about many things. He also had paranoid tendencies to see conspiracies, errors and sin where none existed. Today we call this OCD.

We must be on guard that we act and live as Christ did. But Christ did not spend much energy on conspiracies. He knew there were some against him, but he never broke with his Jewish faith. This is what made the Jews doubt him. He appeared as a typical Jew, not as a Messiah.

Holy men are identified by their love of God and neighbor, not by the absence of sin. We all sin.

JR

 

[Ignatius]

HI everyone.

There was a prediction by someone, I don’t remember who but anyway there was to be no pope for a period of time.

Is it possible that these past many years there hasn’t been, that the Bishops have mainly been running the show.

No. And there was never such a prophesy.

 

[EasterJoy]

Here, let me throw out a few quotes for you:

WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD…RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. - Leo XIII, “Diuturnum Illud”

Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ
BUT
if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public - Galatians 2:11-14

God through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience
BUT
in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits - Galatians 1:8-9

According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

• St. Thomas Aquinas,
  Doctor of the Church
• Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104

But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

Please, spare me the false notion that we must blindly obey error…it is the DUTY of a Catholic to KNOW ONES FAITH, AND REFUSE TO FOLLOW ERROR…AMEN.

The infection of “modernism”, “feminism”, and so on may have spread farther than you realize.

The quote from Acts was from the Pope at the time, standing up to accusers of the Church, not one of the holy women standing up to the Pope.

The quotes from Galations were, likewise, from a bishop given teaching authority from the Apostles.

St. Paul belonged to the Magesterium himself. He had standing, by virtue of the laying on of hands which women may not receive, to debate with the Pope…which he did. Yet he did not go off and follow his own interpretation, but consulted with the brethren in Jerusalem: which is to say, with Peter and the other Apostles. He recognized their authority.

Can you find somewhere where St. Paul thought women should be standing up and rebuking clergy in public, let alone the successor of Peter? He specifically did not allow women to have teaching authority. If it were true that the Pope were in need of someone to stand up to him, then, it would in no way follow that either the right or the authority, let alone the duty, rested with you.

From one woman to another: If you want to think yourself a traditionalist, then fine. Act like one. But if you think your opinion trumps our Pope’s, then I fail to see why any of us should consider the opinions of Leo XIII any more binding than Vatican II seems to be to you.

 

[elts1956]

We are going in circles here :yup: (with PW you definitely will, she knows everything. I get heartburn just seeing her name.:crying because I have already addressed all of this. The statement in bold DOES NOT FOLLOW, as the whole paragraph is the opinion of the author and not backed up by an appropriate Church document. Again, an example would be if I had an exam today that was multiple choice, and another tomorrow that was true or false. The fact that the one tomorrow is true or false does not negate the fact that it is overall an exam. Not even the citation by Fr. Wiltgen reinforces anything that follows, as his citation does not go any further than stating what the Cardinals, i.e. the Princes of the Church had thought.

 

[JReducation]

We are going in circles here because I have already addressed all of this. The statement in bold DOES NOT FOLLOW, as the whole paragraph is the opinion of the author and not backed up by an appropriate Church document. Again, an example would be if I had an exam today that was multiple choice, and another tomorrow that was true or false. The fact that the one tomorrow is true or false does not negate the fact that it is overall an exam. Not even the citation by Fr. Wiltgen reinforces anything that follows, as his citation does not go any further than stating what the Cardinals, i.e. the Princes of the Church had thought.

Maybe we’re all going at this the wrong way. We’re turning this thread into the PW Show and not speaking about the original post.

The only thing I can say to PW and others who think this way is what my mother used to tell us kids, “Think it but don’t say it, unless you’re willing to own it as your own or you have authoritative proof that it’s true.”

In this case, authoritative proof would be a council of bishops. It’s the only kind allowed in the Church. Anything else is personal opinion. Personal opinions are good, as long as the individual accepts that this is what they are, their opinion, not the opinion of the entire Church or those in authority within the Church.

If this were an examination in theoogy, you would not be allowed to give your opinion unless you could sustain it with authoritative statements by those who have the power and credibility to make authoritative statements. Theology is a science, not a rap session. It is based on other disciplines as well as faith. Those disciplines and the faith tradition of Church must be put on the table together to support theology.

As St. Ambrose said, “You cannot discuss faith without theology. You cannot do theology without her sister philosophy. You cannot do any of these without the support of the Church.”

To say that Benedict XVI is a bad pope, one must have the backing of those who have the credibility, the credentials and the authoirty to make this judgement. Otherwise it’s personal opinion.

To spend this much time on one person’s opinion and ignore the original post is derailing the thread.

What would be interesting to me is if we can recall those periods when there ws no pope for a protracted period of time, why that happened, who was involved and what was the outcome. Equally interesting is how was the impasse resolved.

JR

 

[Nickkname]

HI everyone.

There was a prediction by someone, I don’t remember who but anyway there was to be no pope for a period of time.

Is it possible that these past many years there hasn’t been, that the Bishops have mainly been running the show.

God Bless Kathy

Peter is the Rock, and upon this Rock, Jesus built his Church, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.

Can you smell what the Rock is cooking?

 

[ethelzguy]

Today many people, even some Lutheran scholars, question Luther’s mental health, not his soul, but his mind. He was bright and he was right about many things. He also had paranoid tendencies to see conspiracies, errors and sin where none existed. Today we call this OCD.

JR

A part of last week’s sermon discussed Luther’s scrupulosity. Self-abuse, if ever there was an example.