I was once in Paris and ducked into a church. Services were just about to begin but I couldn’t tell if it was a Catholic church. Given the iconostasis and abundance of icons, I thought it might be an Eastern Catholic Church, but everything was in Cyrillic so I couldn’t tell for sure if it was Catholic or Orthodox. I looked all around the narthex for something written in French and was about to walk out, discouraged at the unanswered question, when I saw a picture of Pope Benedict.
“Oh,” I thought, “this is my church.” So I went in and sat down. I don’t know what I’d do today–when you’re a sedevacantist, everything’s a little off.
First of all, and if nothing else, the pope serves as an easy way to identify the Church. “Where Peter is, there is the Church,” St. Ambrose said 1500 years ago, and it’s still true. Want to know if the Polish Catholic Church is in fact a Catholic Church? Ask if they’re in union with the pope.1 Want to know if the Latin Mass you’re about to attend is legit? Ask a parishioner if there’s a pope.2 Want to know which Church is the Church of Christ? Find the one that at least claims an unbroken line to him.
You see, Jesus was pretty clear about founding a Church.3 And he was pretty serious about his followers being undivided4 and knowing true doctrine.5 So I think it’s fair to say that he would have done whatever it took to keep his people united and free from error. How could he have accomplished this?
- With Scripture alone? This results in thousands of different denominations preaching wildly different doctrines.
- With a college of equal bishops? The Orthodox have tried this and, from an outside perspective, it seems to bring them divisions and doctrinal ambiguity.
- With one leader? Oh, that’d be the Pope.
What the papacy provides us is what we really need: continuity and continuation of the Church, easy identification, and protected teachings.6 Through the Holy Father, we have apostolic succession, ensuring that this is the same Church that can trace itself back to Peter. Through his smiling face (whatever it may look like next), we can tell in any country whether or not this is our Church. Through his infallibility and the infallibility granted the bishops in union with him, the true faith is protected by the Holy Spirit. Without a Pope, none of this is guaranteed. And I’d argue that the denominations that don’t have a pope know, at some level, that they’re missing these.7
To my mind, it’s really the infallibility issue that matters. If there is no infallibility, there is no truth and if there is no truth, there is no Church. One might argue that all truth can be found in the Bible. I will choose to stand with Blessed John Henry Newman and say:
It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so systematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation.
Even assuming that one could have a Bible without a Church, the interpretation of Scripture is so varied that those denominations that do not submit themselves to an infallible interpreter number in the tens of thousands. Those that do accept an infallible authority number two. Newman puts it quite succinctly: “The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility.”
In the end, we either have one pope or a billion. Either there is one infallible teacher who bases his claim to infallibility on Christ himself or each man is his own infallible teacher, regardless of 2 Pt 1:20. James Cardinal Gibbons points out how ludicrous this is:
“You assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope. If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible…then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?”
Now, whatever you may say about sinful popes (and there have been some impressive ones), no matter how bad they got, they never changed Church teaching. The worst of the Renaissance popes, with his (alleged?) harem and blatant nepotism never issued a papal decree that beautiful women must sleep with him nor permitted polygamy nor even suggested that the pope should be allowed to marry. No doctrine was ever changed to what was more convenient or pleasant or politically expedient. Think, friends. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, why were these corrupt men with absolute power corrupt only to a point? Why were they corrupt only as regards their personal conduct and not when it came to doctrine? Is it possible that the preservation of the faith is a matter of grace?
Looking at Catholic dogma, you may well think that it is corrupted. But if you’re a Christian, you accept the dogma of the hypostatic union.8 Consider that in the early centuries of the Church there were no fewer than three heretic popes. Liberius was an Arian, Honorius was a Monothelite, and Vigilius was selected as pope specifically because he was a Monophysite. Yet none of the three taught heresy from the See of Peter. Despite personal conviction, they upheld the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith handed down to them.
To put it in more worldly terms, imagine you somehow gained control of an organization whose central tenets you disagreed with. Let’s say, for example, that someone heard that I’m a nomad, was really impressed, and gave me the New York Yankees. Now, because I love God, America, and baseball, I hate the Yankees.9 So if you gave me total control over the club, well, I’d make them play baseball in devil horns and tutus. Or if I were going for subtle and mature, I’d just start inflating the contracts of burnt-out superstars and stop paying the rising stars much of anything. I’d gradually age the Yanks out of the game–clever, huh?
But those heretic popes? Nothing of the sort. Even surrounded by all their heretic buddies, they changed nothing–some even say that Vigilius became orthodox10 when he was consecrated Pope. There was no reason in the world for these guys not to tweak things just a little to make their heresy of choice required belief for all Christians. There was, however, a reason out of this world.
Nobody’s claiming the pope is impeccable or that he’s omniscient. We’ve studied history, too. We’re saying that it’s that much more impressive that, not being impeccable or omniscient, our 265 popes have handed down a Church that–if nothing else–has outlasted every empire it came up against without once compromising its teaching.
Now, you don’t have to be obsessed with every pope like some of us.11 And you don’t have to have action figures and medals and scream like a 12-year-old girl at a Justin Bieber concert every time you think about him.12 And you know what? Depending who the next pope is, you don’t even have to think he’s particularly charming or brilliant or holy. Just as long as you respect him as the Vicar of Christ–not Christ himself but his steward–and accept his infallibility. Given that this is what it means to be Catholic, it doesn’t strike me as terribly hard.
It won’t be too long before we have another pope, friends. His is one of the hardest jobs in the world, with Satan and secularism gunning for him. Let’s do him the honor of starting to love him even now, regardless of whether he’s a traddy or a liberal, a man of expensive tastes or an uncultured boor. Whether he’s got a doctorate in theology or liberal arts or nothing at all, he’ll be better educated than Peter. And even if he weren’t, Jesus made it very clear with his selection of Peter as our first pope that he can use any man to do great things as the Servant of the Servants of God. I’m confident that our next pope will be as incredible as his (recent) predecessors, but just in case, remember: this is our Father. Whatever people might have to say about him, we love him and defend him. Whatever we might have hoped for in a pope, we rejoice in the man God gives us. Pray for him and the Cardinals–the conclave starts Tuesday!!
- Nope. First clue that your church is not the Church established by Christ: it was founded in Scranton. [↩]
- Okay, so this is confusing right now when we’re all sedevacantists, but in a week this litmus test should work again. [↩]
- Mt 16:18-19 again. [↩]
- Jn 17:21 [↩]
- Jn 8:32 [↩]
- Props to Karl Keating for fleshing this out in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. [↩]
- With the exception of the Orthodox and apostolic succession, but the latter two are iffy even then. [↩]
- Jesus is fully God and fully man, one person with two natures, like us in all things but sin. [↩]
- Stay with me Yankee fans. I’m a Braves fan–your titles outnumber ours, what, 27 to 1? Gloat for a minute and then come back to pity my futile little act of defiance. [↩]
- Note the lower case “o”–it just means right belief, not an Eastern Church. [↩]
- Guilty. [↩]
- Guilty on all three counts. My JPII statue/action figure was way ugly, though, so it doesn’t even really count. [↩]
Oh my goodness. This was an excellent explanation of why having a pope makes sense biblically, no matter what flaws the individuals may have had throughout history. Now I know where to send people if I ever get into a discussion about it and haven’t memorized this article yet.
Are you kidding me right now?! A Sedevacantist is one who believes that every pope from PaulVI to BXVI have been false popes because they advocated Vatican II and all of its heresies! Please get informed because your ignorance is inexcusable since we have such great informative and intelligent websites like Novus Ordo Watch, Traditio, Dailycatholic, and Traditionalmass.org!!!
“Now, because I love God, America, and baseball, I hate the Yankees.”
This might be the best line in the history of your blog. Go Braves!
But seriously, another wonderful blog post. You most definitely have a way with words and are so great at explaining things. A true apologetists (?? might have just made up a word there) if there ever was one.
Amy recently posted…Changes
The chimney has a twitter account! @ConclaveChimney and it is hilarious. Had to share!
Oh my gosh I love it! And I hadn’t found it till you pointed it out–thanks!
A lot of times, the name of a group started out as an insult used by other groups to refer to them. I’ve always liked the term ‘Papist’, and I am happy to declare myself a proud Papist.
God bless Pope Francis I!
You are sadly misled and i will pray for you. Please read my reply to Aaron Davidson above.
I appreciate your prayers. I’ll pray for you too; even though you probably believe that my prayers are ineffective since I belong to the Novus Ordo Church and, therefore, not the true Catholic Church.
I’m a traditionalist too, but at the opposite extreme of sedevacantists. I think it is possible to read Vatican II in a hermeneutic of continuity.
Even in cases where there is direct conflict, I am not convinced that the position of the conciliar Church is wrong. For instance, the current Catechism teaches that there are those who do not belong to the Church but are ordered to it in different ways. This does not contradict the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, as long as it is understood that these individuals are somehow ordered to it. Now, I am aware that past Popes (before John XXIII) explicitly taught that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, etc. are outside the Church and the Body of Christ. So current teaching contradicts these pronouncements. However, I ask you, what are we to make of Christ’s promises in the beatitudes, such as when he says: Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy?
This is just one instance, but I do not see current teaching as contrary to the faith handed on by Christ to the Apostles and handed on down to us. I support all those who seek to understand the one faith more fully and I try to do the same. Pray for me, I will pray for you.
Thank you for your prayers for I truly need them to live out the True Catholic Faith these days, especially when every single one of my eleven children (all grown) think I am bonkers for driving an hour to a Tridentine Latin Mass when I live one mile from a novus ordo mess! But let me ask you since you say you are a true Catholic, do you live out the teachings of Jesus Christ? For instance, do you condemn the practices of artificial contraception, abortion, homosexuality? What about the indissolubility of marriage? Speaking of the teaching of marriage, did you hear the latest about the phone call between Francis Bergoglio and a remarried divorcee from Argentina? Francis (aka pope francis I) told her to just ignore what her parish priest told her (about not receiving communion till she removed herself from the occasion of sin she was living in), and go to another parish to receive communion because he is working on making things easier for the divorced and remarried! You call that a true pope? He is not even Catholic! And the first requirement to be a Pope is that a man must be a Catholic! Also, Jesus promised us that His Holy Spirit would guide us, especially His Popes, into all truth. So since Bergoglio is without a doubt spewing out this false hope to a poor sinner and leading her straight to the fires of hell, how can you call him a Pope when it is so apparent that what he said to her is not from the Holy Spirit! You might recall that Jesus said that in the last days satan would even try to deceive the elect. God bless you, it seems you are trying to be the best Catholic you can possibly be. I was a novus ordinarian up until a year ago. I used to see those websites like Novus Ordo Watch, Dailycatholic, and Traditio, and I said to myself, “I gotta see who these people are who are telling these lies about my dear Pope JPII and BXVI! Well, lo and behold, when I read all they told me to read, like the past Papal Encyclicals and Papal Bulls, I found they were right on! I was sick to my stomach after realizing how I had been duped and kept in the darkness all these years, and I had to keep in check the rage I felt toward the whole novus ordo hierarchy! Of course I prayed for the Holy Spirit’s confirmation on my findings, and I did receive it! I heard Him say in my heart, “By their fruits you will know them.” And what are the fruits of the novus ordo? Definitely rotten: pedophilia, condoning of homosexuality and birth control and divorce and remarriage! And if it weren’t for the Sedevacantists, NO ONE would be calling them out on their errors! As far as what you mentioned about the Beatitudes: yes, Jesus said we must be merciful, which means that we must hate the sin but love the sinner because we are all sinners! Jesus said to Mary Magdalen, “Neither do I condemn thee, now go and _sin no more!” Bergoglio said of homosexuality, “Who am I to judge,” and he was right because only God judges; but he, since he claims to be Jesus’ spokesman, should have said like Jesus to M. Magdalen, “Now go and sin no more!” But no, he did not! One last thing, you may want to consider that we never heard the words “novus ordo” till VII. In Latin, these words mean “New Order.” Seems to me that since VII the newchurch is cozying up to the “New World Order!” Be not deceived, unless you want to be because you find the true teachings of Christ too hard to live by–and they are–but “all things are possible with God” through His real Sacraments and real priests (VII changed the words of ordination therefore invalid holy orders and invalid sacraments as well as invalid mass).
Thank you for your email. I can relate to a lot. I also recently started going to a Tridentine Latin mass (only half an hour away), but not to a sedevacantist one but rather one which is in full communion with Rome. Nevertheless, I must say that I have learned a lot from sedevacantists. While I also get uneasy with their disrespectful language towards the Popes after, and including, (now Saint!) John XXIII (and I absolutely refuse to listen to anything against Pope St. John Paul II, who I believe to have been a great saint), I find a lot of what they say instructive and challenging in a good way. My only point is that I have not been swayed by their arguments that the seat of Peter is vacant. As they themselves point out, communion with the Vicar of Christ is of supreme importance to salvation, so before anyone rejects Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ, they had better have certain proof, and I have not been convinced.
Let’s take Pope Paul VI’s novus ordo missae (new order of mass), which they claim was an attempt to change the mass from a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ to some sort of celebration of man. First, while I prefer the ad orientem orientation of the priest (i.e. with his back to the people, which is actually just facing in the same direction as the people), in all my years of going to Novus Ordo masses it was always clear that the mass is a renewal of the sacrifice of Christ. Second, they claim that the new mass is invalid because the words of consecration in many translations included “for all” instead of “for many”, which is the correct translation of “pro multis”, which is inarguably part of the words that Christ himself instituted for this sacrament. However, the Latin missal for the novus ordo missae did contain the words “pro multis”. It is just the English (and other) translations which were wrong. Moreover, this mistranslation has been corrected in the new English translation, in use since the Advent before last or so. Even so, for a sacrament to be valid, intention is an important component. I don’t think the priests celebrating the novus ordo mass over the last 45 years ever had the intention to say something different than what the Latin edition of the missal stated, whatever the translation they were using said, and, again, the Latin missal always had the words “pro multis”. So I do not agree with them that the new mass is invalid. Third, Vatican II recommended a revision of the liturgy in order to eliminate repetitions, increase participation of the faithful and have a wider selection of readings. The intention was not to radically transform the mass, and I don’t believe Paul VI did. I think these changes were in fact good (apart from turning around the priest). As much as I love the Tridentine mass, you must admit that there is some unnecessary repetition, such as when the priest says “Domine, non sum dignus …” two separate times (and repeating it three times the second time). In the new mass, this is only said once (i.e. “Lord, I am not worthy …”). This seems fine to me. As much as I like the Tridentine mass, I also prefer it when I get to participate, as in the few times I get to respond aloud. So I don’t think there is anything wrong with increased participation. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with the greater selection of readings we have with our new 3-year cycle of Sunday readings and 2-year cycle of daily readings. Quite the contrary, what could be wrong with exposing the faithful to a greater portion of the Bible? So, just to sum up, while I have learned a lot from sedevacantists, and while I value the traditional Latin mass, I don’t agree with them that the new mass is invalid or that Vatican II was a conspiracy to rid the world of the true mass. I think the changes it promoted were justified.
As for the phone call from the Pope to this lady in Argentina, I don’t know the details but it is clear that he has not changed church teaching. You yourself admit that there is nothing wrong with the Pope saying “who am I to judge?” to homosexuals. You just say that the Pope should have added more. Well, this is Pope Francis’ genius, I believe. The Church condemns homosexual acts, abortion, divorce and remarriage. Pope Francis has not changed any of this. But he just presents Church teaching differently and in a more sympathetic way to the world. There is nothing wrong with that. I believe Pope Benedict XVI when he said that God asked him to step down. I believe Pope Francis is what the Church needs right now. Pope Benedict was always misinterpreted and attacked. It’s not a matter of changing Church teaching, but just delivering the message in a more sympathetic way. The Church loves the sinner (e.g. the homosexual) but hates the sin (e.g. the homosexual act). This message needs to get out, and it doesn’t seem that Benedict was successful at it. I could elaborate, but I’ll just say that I happen to be familiar with Argentina. There is poverty there that would shock any American. You have no idea what getting a phone call from the Pope will do to a poor woman in Argentina. That kind of show of affection from the Pope will reverberate around the entire country and beyond. I think it will have great effects and move many towards a greater love for the Pope and Church. Now we can sit here and debate the content of the privative message he delivered to her, but the important point is that Church teaching has not changed and this display of concern for the least among us will bear spiritual fruit, I am sure. So Pope Francis is exercising his ministry. God bless him!
Each person has to follow their conscience. I would just recommend that you adopt a slightly more skeptical attitude when going to traditionalist websites. Rejecting the Pope is a drastic step and I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to motivate it and I have tried to explain why not in the few examples I’ve discussed. It is perfectly possible to be a traditional Catholic and remain united with Rome. Once again I wish you the best in your efforts to grow in knowledge of the faith, I will pray for you and I appreciate your prayers for me as I try to do the same.
Carlos, if it weren’t for the Tradiditionalist websites I would not have any clue about what is going on with Francis and Rome. You mentioned you are not clear on the details of that call between Francis and the Argentinian woman living in adultery. If you were a regular reader of these websites, you would know the truth. However, that saying comes to my mind concerning trying to convince others of the truth which was coined by a saint of long ago whom I cannot recollect at the moment. That saying goes: “For him who believes, no explanation is necessary; and for him who does not believe, no explanation is possible.” I pray for your enlightenment.
The Sedevacantists are very right… and simultaneously very wrong. The reason is that Catholics on both sides of the divide must argue from a false premise. See this recently published book “THE SEDEVACANTIST DELUSION: WHY VATICAN II’S CLASH WITH SEDEVACANTISM SUPPORTS EASTERN ORTHODOXY” for a detailed explanation of the reason for Vatican II and the existence of the Sedevacantist movement.
If Vatican II was an essential change of Catholic teaching, and not an accidental change, then either the Church defected or those pushing the VII reforms don’t do it with Christ’s authority. There is a strong case that Vatican II contradicts past magisterial teaching. If anyone did what JPII did at Assisi they would be dismissed as apostates. The Catholic Church does NOT respect false religions because Catholicism is the only TRUE faith. Starting with Vatican II praying with other religions changed from a mortal sin to something positive.
When the Nazis were put on trial their defense was “we were only following orders”. This looks like the excuse of the clergy for supporting Vatican II. “We were only following the pope”. So are they innocent, or shirking their duty as pastors of souls? I do not know, but I do not embrace sedevacantism because I like it or prefer it, but only because for all intents and purposes it appears to be true. I wish it weren’t.
The commentator just identified the crux of the problem that most mainstream Traditional Catholics (non-Sedevacantists) refuse to accept: “If Vatican II was an essential change of Catholic teaching, and not an accidental change, then either the Church defected or those pushing the VII reforms don’t do it with Christ’s authority.” The second part of this observer’s proposition (that the changes were not done with Christ’s authority) which is the central premise of the Sedevacantist thesis could only be true if the facts of the defection did not directly involve indefectible components of the Catholic Church in the first place (e.g. the Holy See). Sedevacantism violates fundamental doctrines of Roman Catholicism and is heretical. However, since the Vatican II Church is also heretical, Catholics who endeavor to search for “the true Church” in either place are stuck in impossible positions. The fact of the Roman Church’s defection – which precipitated the new sect known as Sedevacantists – proves that the Catholic Church is both fallible and defectible according to its own terms. The book “The Sedevacantist Delusion- Why Vatican II’s Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy” explains this in detail.
The apostasy of Vatican II doesn’t prove the schism of “orthodoxy” anymore than chewing gum proves the cubic root of a triangle’s hypotenuse.
Schismatic “orthodox” have been wrong and in heresy for roughly 1000 years. Do try to keep up. I know things move a lot slower over there in the east.
But if you develop an interest in saving your soul, pre-1950’s books on True Catholicism still exist. Sedevacantism is very inconvenient, but it is the only way that is True these days… and is the only way to save your soul… outside of things that really wouldn’t apply to you.
Make the right decision. Become Catholic. Good day.
Michael, your comment doesn’t warrant much of a response but since it gives me another opportunity to tell the reading audience of a great book, I will. The book is entitled: “The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II’s Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy” by John Pontrello. Its obvious you didn’t read the book. I can tell because if you did you would have not anything negative to say about it and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If you are a Sedevacantist, you’re problem is not with Eastern Orthodoxy, it’s with your heretical position, which the book refutes like no other. The author is a former Sede himself, so he knows your problem well enough. As for the Church of the East, it is not your enemy. Eastern Orthodoxy is a solution to your problem as a Sede. I hope you read the book.
Jon… That’s kind of you, assuming you are in good will and not being pedantic. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
I’m not going to read propaganda written by a schismatic heretic, especially one that has abandoned the One True Faith. But thanks.
Here… allow me to write a short book in counter to the book you are suggesting… its called, “The ‘Orthodox’ delusion and why its clash with the Papacy 1000 years ago proved it is schism and how without the Papacy to guide it, it split into several random nationalistic denominations that sort of agree about some things and then fell into heresy about others, like the Holy Trinity and Nestorianism to name a few.” It’s a really short book. Oh, there’s a bonus second book called “How the Schismatics were being ravaged by Infidel Musulmans and how the Latin/Roman Church sent hundreds of thousands of men to fight and die to help these ingrates and how the Schismatics stabbed the Romans in the back by their intrigues and lies and manipulations… and failure to heal the schism by obedience to the Papacy.” A tragic tale one seldom hears. Oh well, feel free to copy and use however you like. I didn’t have those two books copyrighted.
And finally… On Orthodoxy being the enemy… Yes. Orthodoxy is the enemy. You can trace back all the insanity that is going on today back to the errors and arrogance of the so-called “Orthodox” way back 1000 years ago. You deny the primacy of the Pope and it cluster from then on. These destructive ideals came to the west when some of the wealthy schismatics fled the Islamic invasions… they brought their high minded arrogance and taste for pagan art with them. You may have heard of this great influx of garbage. The modern world calls it the “Renaissance”. Just another step closer to re-paganising the world, and you can thank the schismatics. It was only another skip and a hop to Protestantism. Luther was greatly influenced by the pagan philosophers idealized by the schismatics who came west… then not long before Protestantism became Liberalism and Modernism and here we are.
The “Orthodox” are the original enemy… the source of the greatest loss to the Universal Church in history. If not for this first schism, Protestantism and Liberalism and Modernism could never have gotten a foothold the way it has. Don’t you dare tell me that the “Orthodox” are not the enemy. They are NO KIND OF SOLUTION EITHER.
Another disgruntled sede papist taking shots at the world and looking for internet fights because he lost his papacy. Awww poor baby. But hey, who needs a papacy when you have the Dimond Brothers? Yeah, if only the Orthodox didn’t insist on holding the true faith Protestantism wouldn’t exist and the papacy wouldn’t have defected. You’re an idiot.
So pedantic it is. Another “Orthodox” confused about his “history” and with no understanding of theology whatsoever. Go figure. The “Dimond Brotheres”? Don’t know them. Perhaps you mean the Diamond Bro’s?
If you do… mean the DB’s that is… they are not spokesmen for the sedevacantist position. They get some good info out occasionally, but cause more trouble than their worth with their nonsense and heresies. Too bad too, they could do a lot of good if they got their act together. Just like the “Orthodox”… what a waste.
Oh well… there’s no accounting for the moronic. Heresy is an act of the will more so than the intelligence. I’d rather be an “idiot” than a heretic/schismatic headed for the great fires of eternal damnation. Convert quickly Joh… before it’s too late… too late… toooooo laaaateeeeeeee. (repetition for effect… do try to keep up). I know the Holy Trinity thing is confusing to “Orthodox” heretics and also… did you not get the memo about Nestorious being a heretic?
Perhaps your “solution” has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Like trying to put out a kitchen fire with gasoline… You’ve just found a quicker way to burn your house to the ground. Try again. This time try to avoid heresy and schism. The very word “Papist” has been used by enemies of the One True Faith throughout history.
You’ve again shown yourself to be just that… AN ENEMY.
(Before it’s too LATEEEEEEE) Convert that is. Or burn forever, whatever…
If you’re trying to debate an Eastern Orthodox Christian you don’t stand a chance, especially in the predicament you are in as a Sede and an “infallible” Church that defected again. You would have a better chance if you were a modernist under Francis. As a sede, you are a heretic and a schismatic to the Roman See. That’s your first problem that you can’t avoid. As for which church (east or west) is schismatic I can end the debate with one question. In 431 AD the Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would tamper with or alter the Creed. Which Church, East or West violated the canon and added new language that essentially changed the doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed of faith? So you see, it’s over before we begin. But being that you are a sede, this question is important for another reason. You think the same church that violated the infallible decrees of not one, but three ecumenical councils in the first eight centuries didn’t have the right to do so with Vatican II. Really? Come on wake up. Can’t you see that you are trying to defend a church (albeit an invisible one) that can change the doctrine of the Trinity in one century, but can’t change its doctrine on ecumenism and interfaith worship in the 20th century? That’s hypocrisy. The fact is the reason you are a sede today is because the Church of Rome defected (not the first time). That’s why you have no church, no hierarchy, no sacraments, no papacy, no authority, no Rome, no primacy, no living magisterium, nothing but Denzinger. So before you condemn the Eastern Orthodox, you have to face your own contradictory and heretical position and the book in question proved you can’t do it. That’s why you would prefer to spend your time pointing fingers at the modernists or the Eastern Orthodox or whomever. No bud, you’re not in the end-times remnant church foolish sede. You’re a delusional papist who gambled and bet the house on Rome and then lost big when it defected to modernism. And you thought you had a winner. No such defection can occur in Orthodoxy, even if 99.9% of the Orthodox sees defect because Orthodoxy is not comprised in a see as in Roman Catholicism. Again, Orthodoxy is not your problem, it’s your solution at this point but you just haven’t figured it out yet. Too busy condemning everyone outside of the Church to hell, except yourself of course. The fact is, you lost your church when you lost Rome and Jesus is not coming down from heaven to restore it. You can have the last word.
Jon… wow… I usually don’t waste my time on schismatic/heretic TROLLS but I have to comment on this painfully long winded and ignorant rant… Thanks for the last word!
On debating heretics and schismatics who think that they have the answer to the worlds problems… Why bother? You’ve thrown logic and reason out the window. The only thing I can do with a moron such as yourself is pray for your soul and shred your nonsense publicly in hopes that no souls are confused by your ignorance and lies, and become lost.
Your claim that I “have no chance” in winning a debate… right before you turn tail and run away is cartoonish and the irony “bud” is that you have no chance of salvation in “Orthodoxy”, until you recant your heresy/schism and become Catholic. Repentance is your only “chance”.
Modernists are heretics. Francis is an apostate. They have no bearing at all. But of course you give them credit and credence because you are an heretic as well. Heretics and apostates rarely have problems with other heretics etc. Calvin burned some people and the Anabaptists but, now we’re just splitting hairs. The flavor of the day now is heretical hand holding, like in the apostate gathering of Assisi. Disgusting and guess what… your schismatic Eastern sect had a representative there in the apostate/pantheist gathering right along side Franko the clown. HA! Why do you even bother with “Orthodoxy”? Franko says you can do whatever you want. “Orthodoxy” still has some rules LOL. You’re a Liberal trapped in denial. WAKE UP.
It doesn’t take that much time to point to an obvious heretic/schismatic and say… convert or burn. See, that was fast. I have lots of time left to shred your lies and errors. Thanks for worrying about my time heretic, but I’m fine. I can keep up.
Also… you claim I have contradicted myself. How so? I understand the proper use of authority. How a hierarchy works… how a monarchy works. You however seem to think people can make up whatever they like and run with it. Modernists say the same thing. No wonder you like Franco so much. Franko is not even a priest. He was ordained in a false rite. Not a priest? Not Catholic? Can’t be a Pope. SORRY, try again.
On all your sophisms about “blah blah council… whatever”. You forget the basic principle of authority. The Papacy is what gives the “council” any authority. If you want to throw a fit and cry about what the papacy did after a council, see the above and get over it. Or become a schismatic like the fools in the East did and burn. Everyone seems to do whatever they want in the end. Most chose hell. DON’T BE THAT GUY!
“Though art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church…” (Matt 16:18) The “Orthodox” surely have a song and a dance about how that doesn’t mean what it means… just like every other heretic/schismatic in history. But a song and a dance doesn’t make it true.
BEFORE IT’S TOO LAAAATEEEEE! You can still save your soul heretic/schismatic. The world isn’t over yet, and you are still breathing. Just because the “Orthodox” have big pretty “churches” and lots of money and organizations all over the world… can’t save you. They are not the True Church. They are not ONE… there are 17 or so different nationalistic sects that don’t agree, they are not Holy… they are heretics and heretics are not holy, they are Apostolic… I’ll give you that one, but so are the Jansenists, and they are NOT Catholic. Russian, Ukranian, Greek, Coptic, etc. etc…. that’s sectish and Nationalistic. Try again heretic/schismatic. Get it right before you die or YOU’LL BURN. No one wants to burn… so try again.
Good day
” . . .There are 17 or so different nationalistic sects that don’t agree…” The Orthodox do agree on doctrine. The nationalistic part I grant you, and it is a shame, but none of them teach a different dogma or set of dogmas.
Unless you are referring to the Copts for intance, and even then the division is again, more political than anythig else. Sigh.
JOHN,
MEA MAXIMA CULPA! I was wrong… oh man… wow… WRONG.
Oh the shame. Everything I “knew” about the Orthodox was a bunch of nonsense and half truths and plain lies. I was wrong about a lot of what I wrote if not all of it.
I would delete all the above ravings but I can’t. So here is a public retraction of all the above garbage spewed above by myself. Ignorant, bad sources and bull headed stupidity.
Mea culpa, please forgive an overzealous fool.
Peace in Christ,
M.
I am no longer a 1958 sedevacantist, though I still think Francis is not the pope. My way out of the mess was finding out Francis never was the pope and studying traditional Catholic moral theology. Scandal is not the same thing as heresy, and the difference between manifest heresy and rash judgement is that in manifest heresy you don’t try to estimate what the person is thinking. He blurts it out.
John is right that if old style sedevacantism is true, Catholicism is false. But I see Vatican II in a hemenuetic of continuity. Anyone who claims that it is a new beginning, even if he pretends to follow Vatican II, he doesn’t follow it.
The scriptures talk of one false prophet, not six. I will leave it at that. Fulton Sheen and Anne Catherine Emmerich warned us of the false prophet and one world church.