The Most Holy Family Monastery

[MMLJ]

Just a moment–you have no way of knowing which Hindus “know of Christ” (as in “full knowledge” which you mention above) and which don’t, nor which have a desire for justification (baptism of desire) and which don’t. It’s okay to pray for their conversion as a group, but it’s not okay to assume that all are incapable of being saved.

I personally know of many Hindus/Muslim (of various type)/others, WHO ARE FULLY KNOWLEDGEABLE of Christ and neither want nor desire nor anything to do with baptism or Christ. What becomes of them? Are they saved according to Pope Benedict XVI?

The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI does NOT advise the worship of idols. You have now begun to move from ripping his words out of context to spinning them according to your needs.

Well maybe you and I know this, but my non-Christian colleagues upon reading citations from Pope Benedict XVI, say that according to him they can worship idols (COW and RAT etc.) and say that the Pope is agreeing with their religions. He is not clear on his position with regards to religions and conversion.

Let me ask you outright–do you, MMLJ, believe that Pope Benedict XVI IS the legitimately elected Pope and Vicar of Christ here on Earth, or not?

Yes he is the Pope. But that does not mean that he is Christ+ and he is definitely far from perfect as Christ is. Case in Point, Pope John Paul 2 kissed the Koran. I cannot see that as what Christ would want a Pope to do. Do you? If so please clarify how Christ who is GOD justifies that a Pope kissed the Koran,

Should not The Pope be spreading the Word of Christ who is GOD in the Mosques and Synagogues, since that these two Popes (JP2 and BenXVI) have Been to and prayed in? ***Did not Christ preach in Synagogues? ***

So as a Pope, as you say the ‘Vicar of Christ on Earth’, should do the same instead of praying in Mosques and Muslims who deny Christ is GOD in the Koran? That is what the title is for is it not?

Why does Pope Beendict XVI hold in high esteem and have great regard for the religion Islam? Over and over and over and over again. ** It is ad nauseum.**

 

[GerardP]

DJim wrote:

QUOTE]But you do seem awfully hung up on EWTN.

EWTN is a big offender. No one ever corrects the theologians or personalities when Frs. Groeschel and Pacwa throw out some major errors and heresies and no one at EWTN corrects them.

HUH? This is absolutely hilarious! The Pope–the ONE human being in the entire Church possessed of personally infallibile teaching authority–is supposed to adhere to Aquinas because** someone **once called him “the official theologian” of the Church??? I thought it was only a few wacky “liberals” who held to the notion of a “double magisterium” that included theologians. I guess I was wrong…?

I must say that you tend to make comments without ever seeming to research your answers before you make them.

I don’t have room to post all of the quotes here but a sampling will suffice.

The Council of Trent but St. Thomas’ Summa on the Altar right next to the Scriptures. Leo XII, St. Pius X, St. Pius XII are just three of the many Popes that utterly insisted that St. Thomas teaching was essential for understanding and defending the faith.

Leos XIII quoting Sixtus V:

"And with regard, venerable brethren, to the origin, drift, and excellence of this scholastic learning, it may be well here to speak more fully in the words of one of the wisest of Our predecessors, Sixtus V: "By the divine favor of Him who alone gives the spirit of science wisdom, and understanding, and who thou ages, as there may be need, enriches His Church with new blessings and strengthens it with safeguards, there was founded by Our fathers, men of eminent wisdom, the scholastic theology, which two glorious doctors in particular angelic St. Thomas and the seraphic St. Bonaventure, illustrious teachers of this faculty, . . .with surpassing genius, by unwearied diligence, and at the cost of long labors and vigils, set in order and beautified, and when skilfuly arranged and clearly explained in a variety of ways, handed down to posterity.

Pius XII:

“Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the** Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology.**”

Leo XIII again:

Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because “he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all.”

And we know how in those great homes of human wisdom, as in his own kingdom, Thomas reigned supreme; and that the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor.

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull In Ordine; Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull Pretiosus, and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows lustre from his admirable teaching; while **St. Pius V **declares in the bull Mirabilis that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull Verbo Dei, affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: “It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.”(35) Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and **Benedict XIV **in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: **“His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”(**36)

 

[DJim]

EWTN is a big offender. No one ever corrects the theologians or personalities when Frs. Groeschel and Pacwa throw out some major errors and heresies and no one at EWTN corrects them.

GerardP, you make forum discussion fun–and sometimes you make it hilarious.

Accusing EWTN of heresy is about as zany as it gets.

I must say that you tend to make comments without ever seeming to research your answers before you make them.

I don’t have room to post all of the quotes here but a sampling will suffice.

I honestly think you missed my point. I’m not saying Thomas is unworthy of the title “the theologian”. His massive intellect and great work should not ever be dismissed lightly by anyone. I am saying that even the Doctors of the Church like Aquinas are subject to the one and only Magisterium of the Church held by the Pope and bishops. Aquinas was never part of the Magisterium.

Hey–isn’t it great how our sedevacantist friends completely ripped Cardinal Ratzinger out of context?

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

You have no way of knowing just how emotional–or emtionless–I’m being. But you do seem awfully hung up on EWTN.

HUH? This is absolutely hilarious! …is supposed to adhere to Aquinas because someone once called him “the official theologian” of the Church???

Your statement here is anti-Christian, and therefore not worthy of repeating. Please show some fortitude an not mock such an important figure in Catholicism. It seems, from the way you relay info, that you are have elevated yourself above St.Thomas Aquinas. You must be elated at that. Your grandiosity is remarkable. No Doubt.

I thought it was only a few wacky “liberals” who held to the notion of a “double magisterium” that included theologians. I guess I was wrong…?

Uh, Aquinas is dead. He can’t “correct” the Pope. Nor was Galatians about “interreligious dialogue”! That’s preposterous! It was intrareligious discipline that was the conflict. Peter’s personal behavior, not his teaching.
DJim

Please stay on the topic of this thread and try not to curtail others on your hidden agenda of insulting Saints.

Please show respect for the Sainthood and for our fellow posters. We, as Catholics, are here for information sharing, discussion, and to spread the one true religion of Christ. Proper etiquette and diligence should be shown. Thank you and God Bless.

 

[cavanlass]

To return to the first question–it was asking about HFM, run by the Dimond bros.-The book “Smoke of Satan” (from the local library) tells all about this group–for the good of your soul, please read this book before you fall for their lines. They are really nuts. How do I know? Because I was once in a cult just like theirs. It took years to get out, and the cult thinking still permeates your thinking, and you have no idea it’s still there.
You may be able to get more info on the book on amazon.

 

[DJim]

Your statement here is anti-Christian, and therefore not worthy of repeating. Please show some fortitude an not mock such an important figure in Catholicism. It seems, from the way you relay info, that you are have elevated yourself above St.Thomas Aquinas. You must be elated at that. Your grandiosity is remarkable. No Doubt.

Straw man.

Want to try again?

Please stay on the topic of this thread and try not to curtail others on your hidden agenda of insulting Saints.

Straw man or “shoot the messenger.” Your choice.

But, alas, you’ve found me out. My hidden agenda in these forums is to insult as many Saints as possible. Aquinas is easy. I’m having a bit of trouble with St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, however…

Please show respect for the Sainthood and for our fellow posters. We, as Catholics, are here for information sharing, discussion, and to spread the one true religion of Christ. Proper etiquette and diligence should be shown. Thank you and God Bless.

What is the proper etiquette for deliberately making a Pope look bad?

Let’s do get back on topic–what do you think of the full text of the Cardinal’s quote?

DJim

PS–I’ve restated my point to GerardP, to whom my comments regarding Aquinas and the Magisterium were addressed. I am of the opinion my comments showed no disrespect to Aquinas or the Saints. If anyone disagrees, you have my apologies.

 

[GerardP]

You have no way of knowing just how emotional–or emtionless–I’m being.

I’m just going on the hysterical rhetoric you are using.

HUH? This is absolutely hilarious! The Pope–the ONE human being in the entire Church possessed of personally infallibile teaching authority–is supposed to adhere to Aquinas because someone once called him “the official theologian” of the Church???

First, I’ve just shown you what the Magisterium of the Church thinks of St. Thomas’ mode of thought. So, it’s not “someone” it’s the Teaching Authority of the Church (ie. the Magisterium)

Second, the Pope is quite infallible when speaking as a theologian or private individual. He has to invoke the magisterium either ordinary infallible or extraordinary infallible. The authentic magisterium is fallible.

I thought it was only a few wacky “liberals” who held to the notion of a “double magisterium” that included theologians. I guess I was wrong…?

No. There is only one Magisterium with three levels of expression.
Most Catholics that even know the word think that the Magisterium is synonymous with the heirarchy or the Curia. I’ve seen you use the term “living” magisterium and I suspect you have a wrong understanding of the term as well.

No wonder he’s so brilliant–Augustine is a great model. But, please, provide the full quote in which Benedict says he doesn’t get STA. Love to see it…

It’s from his book “Milestones” --“By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made”

The Pope does not “preach” against the Magisterium.

Again history proves you wrong. John the 22nd preached error from the pulpit regarding the beatific vision and those who’ve gone to their particular judgement prior to the general judgement. It took him years to recant it.

Uh, Aquinas is dead. He can’t “correct” the Pope.

Funny how now you want to discuss tense. Aquinas’ teachings can correct a Pope if the Pope is going off the rails.

Nor was Galatians about “interreligious dialogue”! That’s preposterous! It was intrareligious discipline that was the conflict.

Of course you are correct on that. I apologize. I was jumping the gun with that. I’ve used it before to show the folly of interreligious dialogue as the last three major pontificates have.

Peter’s personal behavior, not his teaching.

You’re stretching it here. Behavior is quite the teacher for one thing and it warranted a place in the Scriptures according to God.
And St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine refer to it as an incidence of a rebuke of a superior by an inferior.

Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. --St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14

 

[GerardP]

No, it wasn’t. There really wasn’t even “debate” at the time. My point was that Aquinas was not always error-free.

Neither are the Popes. And considerning how little “Poping” they’ve done in the last few decades, they have been wrong often.

The Magisterium, when teaching universally and definitively in faith/morals, IS.

That’s how you know when a Pope is deviating from what the Magisterium has stated. The Pope is bound BY the magisterium. He doesn’t control it by his whim.

WRONG. They are themselves a very real problem in the LAITY.

True. And it is a problem in the clergy. But it was provoked by the problem in the heirarchy.

The problem is human pride.

I agree but it’s pride in the heirarchy as well.

A lack of willingness to obey the living Magisterium of the Church.

“living” Magisterium. I believe you are incorrect in your understanding of this. The “living” Magisterium has very rarely and vaguely invoked the ordinary infallibility of the Church.

A belief in the superiority of their own view of Church doctrine, unwilling to submit to those whom Jesus appointed to the task of interpretation.

I suspect you must have a touch of charistaticism in you. Jesus did not positively “appoint” anyone beyond the 12 Apostles. And that group he had quite a problem with them obeying Him.

An unfortunate falsehood on your part. Our recent popes have been truly holy men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit to diligently lead the faithful.

You don’t know their interior disposition and neither do I. You shouldn’t judge the Popes on that matter. They could be saints or sinners in Hell for all we know. Pray for God’s mercy for them.

The Magisterium has been clear and direct and faithful.

No. That is patently false. It (being the authentic Magisterium only) has been vague, unclear, permissive and prone to provoking error.

Unfortunately, many Catholics of differing extremes choose to ignore the Magisterium and instead rely on their own authority to interpret Catholic teaching.

Not at all, it’s by knowing the faith and clinging to Tradition and having discernment from the Holy Ghost that we can know when we are being lead astray by the Shepherds that have become wolves either by error or intent.

Absurd. It is NOT “excessive zeal for the person of the Pope” that inspires one to humbly and obedient embrace the Catholic faith safeguarded and interpreted infallibly by the living Magisterium of the Church.

Those are just high sounding slogans. You have to learn to discern and recognize Peter’s voice when the Pope chooses to use it. Some Popes do a better job than others at safeguarding the faith. And interpreting infallibly is rarely done anymore and hasn’t been done except once by JPII regarding ordination of women. And even that was badly worded.

Rather, it is excessive zeal for one’s own “personal pope”–ME and “my interpretation”–that causes some to believe the Popes aren’t really doing the work of the Holy Spirit.

Not really. That’s more of a defense mechanism on your part to preserve your excessive zeal. Any exploration into theological or historical specifics that prove you wrong is simply ignored. It’s a closed attitude that has been inbibed in.

As I stated earlier. The “conservatives” simply adjust their perception of reality to deal with the contradictions in the policies and philosophies of the recent Popes and the sedes solve their problem by remaining consistent but being in error regarding the “impeccability” of the Pope.

In 2007, I predict that Fr. LeFloch’s comment will remain largely irrelevant.

Prophets are often rejected even though they tell the truth.

We’ve had such great popes in the last 75 years that his “prediction” was disproven long ago.

The last great Pope we had was St. Pius X. Each Pope has successively given into liberalism in one form or another in varying degrees. The very fact that B16 is so much better a Pope than JPII is evident of the liberal slide. He’s hated for very softly diplomatically stating what John XXIII said more forcefully with impunity. And Pope John is considered a liberal icon. He would be considered medieval by modern standards.

 

[GerardP]

To return to the first question–it was asking about HFM, run by the Dimond bros.-The book “Smoke of Satan” (from the local library) tells all about this group–for the good of your soul, please read this book before you fall for their lines. They are really nuts. How do I know? Because I was once in a cult just like theirs. It took years to get out, and the cult thinking still permeates your thinking, and you have no idea it’s still there.
You may be able to get more info on the book on amazon.

You can’t really trust “The Smoke of Satan” fully either. It’s written by Micheal Cuneo if we are talking about the same book and he’s a prominent atheist if I recall and no friend of the Catholic Church when it comes down ot it. He’s not a total propagandist but just be careful how much reliance you put in him.

 

[cavanlass]

Gerard, I agree you mut be careful, thanks.
I know Cuneo came to Spokane to investigate Mount St Michael, started by Francis Schuckardt. His report was right on the money, and honest reporting, so I feel comfortable with accepting his information.

 

[DJim]

First, I’ve just shown you what the Magisterium of the Church thinks of St. Thomas’ mode of thought. So, it’s not “someone” it’s the Teaching Authority of the Church (ie. the Magisterium)

My point was and is simple–the Pope, by virtue of his office–is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching universal error in faith and morals. Period. Aquinas, however, is not. Nor does his teaching possess magisterial authority on its own.

Second, the Pope is quite infallible when speaking as a theologian or private individual. He has to invoke the magisterium either ordinary infallible or extraordinary infallible. The authentic magisterium is fallible.

I know you meant “fallible” above. What you say is quite true. He is not protected by the Holy Spirit when speaking or teaching outside his papal office. Nor is that protection in place when he is not teaching universally.

No. There is only one Magisterium with three levels of expression.
Most Catholics that even know the word think that the Magisterium is synonymous with the heirarchy or the Curia. I’ve seen you use the term “living” magisterium and I suspect you have a wrong understanding of the term as well.

I specifically use the term living magisterium to express the truth that the authority of the Church is indeed alive. It’s not something in the past. It exists in the lives of the living Pope and bishops. And it’s not OUR job to correct the living magisterium when it teaches authoritatively. It’s our job to submit our wills to the Holy Spirit-protected teachings of the Church.

It’s from his book “Milestones” --“By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made”

Is there any more text? In any case, it would seem Cardinal Ratzinger was admitting (like the rest of us) the difficulty of penetrating Aquinas’ thought. What’s so shocking about this?

Again history proves you wrong. John the 22nd preached error from the pulpit regarding the beatific vision and those who’ve gone to their particular judgement prior to the general judgement. It took him years to recant it.

“From the pulpit” is NOT universal teaching. That’s the point. No specific office-based protection by the Holy Spirit there.

Funny how now you want to discuss tense. Aquinas’ teachings can correct a Pope if the Pope is going off the rails.

No, it most absolutely can not. I would assume that only a Pope (either himself or a future Pope) can “correct a Pope” when there is private error. By definition a Pope can NOT teach error in his universal teaching on faith/morals. It’s impossible.

As it is, Aquinas’s teachings can be used by the Pope to correct a Pope’s private error, but they have no magisterial authority on their own.

You’re stretching it here. Behavior is quite the teacher for one thing and it warranted a place in the Scriptures according to God.
And St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine refer to it as an incidence of a rebuke of a superior by an inferior.

A rebuke over practice, not teaching. We’ve already established agreement that papal behavior and private teaching may fall into error. Just as Peter did in not eating with Gentiles after teaching that such discrimination was wrong.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

GerardP, you make forum discussion fun–and sometimes you make it hilarious.

Accusing EWTN of heresy is about as zany as it gets.

I’m sorry. I must be wrong then. Will you provide a link to where EWTN provides errata statements and corrections? Or is it just the greatest run of luck ever on television? 25 years and error free?

I honestly think you missed my point. I’m not saying Thomas is unworthy of the title “the theologian”. His massive intellect and great work should not ever be dismissed lightly by anyone. I am saying that even the Doctors of the Church like Aquinas are subject to the one and only Magisterium of the Church held by the Pope and bishops. Aquinas was never part of the Magisterium.

Hey–isn’t it great how our sedevacantist friends completely ripped Cardinal Ratzinger out of context?

Well, it’s understandable since you make the distinction that a papal statement from Josef Ratzinger is different from a statement by Josef Ratzinger as prefect for the CDF.

The Dimond Bros. don’t believe he’s Pope for two principal reasons. They deny the validity of his consecration (if I recall correctly) and they ascribe to Pope Paul IV’s declaration that a man who has ever manifested a heresy can never be Pope.

It’s kind of ironic considering the statements their quoting are similarly to the “moving context” and mobilism of Card. Ratzingers statement re: Judaism and Jesus.

It’s also unfortunate that the heirarchy speaks with such statements that are tailor-made to confuse catholics of all stripes as well as non-Catholics.

 

[juliamajor]

what about “obedience” .These “popes” left the church creating their own view of Catholicism-their own sect.so they will be the "remnant’ THE TRUE CATHOLICS- the chosen people- everyone else in error or tottering on the brink of it,. How Calvinist of you! How about obedience? Far as I can see Lucian there broke his vow of obedience- not a very catholic thing to do- not very “popey”.
So how do they justify their break? how do you justify it?

 

[DJim]

Neither are the Popes. And considerning how little “Poping” they’ve done in the last few decades, they have been wrong often.

False.

The Popes are error-free in their universal teaching on faith and morals.

Exactly what is it that you claim the popes of the last few decades have been “wrong” on? And who actually gives you the authority to decide when they’re right and when they’re wrong?

That’s how you know when a Pope is deviating from what the Magisterium has stated. The Pope is bound BY the magisterium. He doesn’t control it by his whim.

But you don’t seem to understand that we are ALL bound by not just “the” Magisterium but by the living Magisterium. You don’t get to personally determine if or when the Pope is “wrong” in a universal teaching. In fact, Popes can’t be wrong in universal teaching on faith/morals, something you seem to reject–or at least never address.

True. And it is a problem in the clergy. But it was provoked by the problem in the heirarchy.

Your opinion. My opinion is that it was provoked by their own ignorance and pride.

I agree but it’s pride in the heirarchy as well.

It’s hard to see evidence of pride in the clear teaching of the Magisterium. Can you cite an example of pride in the hierarchy?

“living” Magisterium. I believe you are incorrect in your understanding of this. The “living” Magisterium has very rarely and vaguely invoked the ordinary infallibility of the Church.

I am quite correct in my understanding of the living Magisterium. And I have to point out that if you think the Magisterium has to “invoke” its universal ordinary infallibility, you are mistaken. The infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium is just something that “is”–it exists. Teaching that is infallible via this mode may indeed be pointed out (as Pope John Paul the Great did in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, e.g.) by the magisterium, but most of the time it simply “exists”.

I suspect you must have a touch of charistaticism in you. Jesus did not positively “appoint” anyone beyond the 12 Apostles. And that group he had quite a problem with them obeying Him.

Tell me what it is and I’ll tell whether I have more than a touch or not. Jesus did “appoint” Paul, too, didn’t He? Jesus did give His Church the authority of apostolic succession, didn’t he?

I stand by my original comment.

No. That is patently false. It (being the authentic Magisterium only) has been vague, unclear, permissive and prone to provoking error.

The universal teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has been free from error, and will clearly remain free from error.

Not at all, it’s by knowing the faith and clinging to Tradition and having discernment from the Holy Ghost that we can know when we are being lead astray by the Shepherds that have become wolves either by error or intent.

If you believe that the Pope can officially and positively teach universal error in faith and morals, then it is you who have been led astray, not the Magisterium. If you believe “your” Holy Spirit is more precise than theirs, you are also awfully presumptuous.

Those are just high sounding slogans. You have to learn to discern and recognize Peter’s voice when the Pope chooses to use it. Some Popes do a better job than others at safeguarding the faith. And interpreting infallibly is rarely done anymore and hasn’t been done except once by JPII regarding ordination of women. And even that was badly worded.

The Pope uses “Peter’s voice” whenever he universally teaches in faith/morals. Regarding the supposed “badly worded” Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you have apparently misunderstood the nature of the infallibility taught by Pope John Paul II in that document–it wasn’t his document that was a personal exercise of his “ex cathedra” infallibility. It was the teaching in the document that the Pope recognized as being infallible via the ordinary universal magisterium–NOT via the extraordinary papal magisterium.

DJim

 

[Sure]

Just a quick editorial comment:

This Thread is HILARIOUS!!!

To whomever linked to Pope Pius XIII and Pope Michael: you made my day! That was really funny!

Thanks!

 

[MMLJ]

But, alas, you’ve found me out. My hidden agenda in these forums is to insult as many Saints as possible. Aquinas is easy.

By your own admission.

What is the proper etiquette for deliberately making a Pope look bad?

I only seek the truth. As for why anyone, who shows disrespect for the Sainthood, deliberately makes the Pope look bad and further makes the confused more confused.

Let’s do get back on topic–what do you think of the full text of the Cardinal’s quote?

I never left topic, since I was enquiring about references on the Most Holy Family Website. I liked the ‘Pope’s’ full passage.

Let me ask you this what do you think of the following:

Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

**St.John 8:23-24-“… for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.” **

**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439, ex cathedra: **“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully
believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man…”

Are these still valid or not? Yes/No

Your comments would be appreciated.

 

[Genesis315]

By your own admission.

I only seek the truth. As for why anyone, who shows disrespect for the Sainthood, deliberately makes the Pope look bad and further makes the confused more confused.

I never left topic, since I was enquiring about references on the Most Holy Family Website. I liked the ‘Pope’s’ full passage.

Let me ask you this what do you think of the following:

Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

**St.John 8:23-24-“… for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.” **

**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439, ex cathedra: **“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully
believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man…”

Are these still valid or not? Yes/No

Your comments would be appreciated.

First off, why is there an “ex cathedra” next to that–it’s a concilliar statement–the Council doesn’t speak from a “chair.” I don’t get why so called “traditionalists” don’t understand that very basic point of doctrine. “From the chair” refers to papal infallibility.

It’s also part of the Bull of Union with the Armenians, and not a statement aimed at the universal Church. Therefore, it does not have the solemn characteristic of a dogmatic definition binding on the whole Church. People like MFH put the words “ex cathedra” next to everything they like and everything they don’t like they completely dismiss. It’s absurd. But, that being said, that passage from the Council does express a truth of our faith.

But, Our Lord also said someone must eat His flesh to have eternal life–he didn’t mention any exceptions–and yet we believe Baptized children who neither believe in the Incarnation nor have eaten His flesh are saved (even the folks at MHF believe that.)

Read this series of articles. They are a proof that the Church is a necessity of means. But they also explain how a desire for something satisfies a condition for salvation when an individual is not culpable for not meeting that condition (they are from the 1940s).

catholicresponse.net/proofpart1.htm

catholicresponse.net/proofpart2.htm

catholicresponse.net/proofpart3.htm

 

[DJim]

I never left topic, since I was enquiring about references on the Most Holy Family Website. I liked the ‘Pope’s’ full passage.

Yes, me too. It’s that much more shameful that the web site saw fit to deliberately misquote the Cardinal, isn’t it?

Let me ask you this what do you think of the following:

Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

Yes, this is true assuming that a particular individual has had the opportunity to hear the true Gospel. This does not address situations in which the Gospel message has not been truly presented or heard.

**St.John 8:23-24-“… for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.” **

**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439, ex cathedra: **“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully
believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man…”

Are these still valid or not? Yes/No

Your comments would be appreciated.

John 8 is valid, of course–Jesus was speaking to people who had ample opportunity to learn who He was and to believe in Him. They certainly would die in their sin if they refused to believe in Him.

Regarding the Council of Florence quote, I’m going to be a bit more particular. Please provide the ENTIRE quote and get rid of those pesky “ellipses” that are the hallmark of deception in many cases, as in the case of the quote discussed earlier from Cardinal Ratzinger.

DJim

 

[DJim]

I’m sorry. I must be wrong then. Will you provide a link to where EWTN provides errata statements and corrections? Or is it just the greatest run of luck ever on television? 25 years and error free?

Burden of proof is on you, GP–give me an example of an actual error. If you can actually do it, I’ll contact EWTN and ask them to clarify their position.

Well, it’s understandable since you make the distinction that a papal statement from Josef Ratzinger is different from a statement by Josef Ratzinger as prefect for the CDF.

I do not understand your comment–you mean that when a man becomes pope, everything he ever said prior to his election is now a “papal statement”???

The Dimond Bros. don’t believe he’s Pope for two principal reasons. They deny the validity of his consecration (if I recall correctly) and they ascribe to Pope Paul IV’s declaration that a man who has ever manifested a heresy can never be Pope.

And in doing so make THEMSELVES the living Magisterium of the Church.

It’s kind of ironic considering the statements their quoting are similarly to the “moving context” and mobilism of Card. Ratzingers statement re: Judaism and Jesus.

It’s also unfortunate that the heirarchy speaks with such statements that are tailor-made to confuse catholics of all stripes as well as non-Catholics.

??? are you implying that the deception practiced by sedevacantists is somehow the Pope’s fault?

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

Regarding the Council of Florence quote, I’m going to be a bit more particular. Please provide the ENTIRE quote and get rid of those pesky “ellipses” that are the hallmark of deception in many cases, as in the case of the quote discussed earlier from Cardinal Ratzinger.

DJim

As Requested:

Pope Eugene IV, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE, 1439, ex cathedra:
SESSION 8 22 November 1439

Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.

It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.​

Remember this is THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE and The Pope is speaking ex cathedra.