General Catholic Discussion »
Martyrdom or suicide?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Author Topic: Martyrdom or suicide? (Read 2912 times)
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:14:39 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 11:34:33 AM
It is de fide that the Church of Rome cannot defect.
That is to say, the diocese of Rome with the Pope at its head. Every other member of the Church can defect (dioceses of Greece, Egypt, Spain, Germany, England, the United States, etc.) except its head, the diocese of Rome. Why? Because if the head defects, the body dies.......
The Church, which is Christ, remains Christ throughout the world both in time and in eternity, even in Rome. That is the reason it's de fide that the Church in Rome or anywhere else you want to name, cannot defect. Indeed, even suggesting such a thing is to suggest that Christ can defect from Himself, which is absurd. The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is only the Church's visible head on earth, and is perfectly able to cut himself off if that's what he wants to do, just the same as any other member who wants to cut themselves off, and no matter who or how many choose to cut themselves off, the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ will live on, and will never die.
For our part, we must remain members of the Church, which is Christ, even if it's visible head chooses to cut himself off. Christ is the one who really is in charge and it is to Him, the Church, which we must remain firmly attached.
It's not anywhere else I want to name: it's the Roman church and the Roman church alone that cannot defect.
The visible head of the Universal Church, i.e. Rome, cannot defect otherwise the Church would become headless and wouldn't have a focal point of institutional and doctrinal unity. The pope cannot cut himself off from the Church without ceasing to be pope. You can't have a succession of heretical popes and pretend Rome hasn't defected. The promise associated with the fact that Rome cannot defect is the promise that the visible head of the Church will always be there until the end of time and cannot fall into heresy, at least without being deposed, otherwise the gates of Hell would have prevailed. That is the traditional understanding.
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 12:31:35 PM
The defection of a pope does not mean that the Church's head is cut off resulting in it's death or defection, because the pope is only the visible head. No matter what else happens, we know that the Church on earth will live on until the end of time - that, coming directly from Our Lord, *is* de fide. This fact is foundational to our faith and is never called into question.
Our Lady of La Salette said that Rome will lose the faith, so where are you getting this dogma that says the exact opposite? Please post your source.
And yes, all the conciliar popes have preached heresy, which only demonstrates that 1) popes are not the Church, 2) popes can preach heresy, 3) in spite of that, the Church is still here, 4) in spite of that, the Church has not been defeated.
It appears you are equating all four - the Church, Rome, Christ and the pope, but this is altogether wrong.
The pope is a man, same as you and me. Because he is a man like you and me, he can defect, just like you and me. And like you and me, there is not a single sin which the pope cannot commit. As to whether or not he has indeed cut himself off, which is also something he is capable of doing (just like you and me) that is not our concern because we can do nothing about it.
Do I think he has cut himself off? - I'd have to say that in my opinion, yes he has, that's as much time to waste on that problem as there is.
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent
awkwardcustomer
You can't have a succession of heretical popes and pretend Rome hasn't defected.
But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.
The promise associated with the fact that Rome cannot defect is the promise that the visible head of the Church will always be there until the end of time ….
This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.
Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.
Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.
(2Thess:2)
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.
And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
Religion: Roman Catholic
Quote from: christulsa on January 06, 2019, 07:58:54 PM
Conclusion: no, going Eastern Orthodox isn't a safe haven during this dark age in Christian history.
For those who think everything's rosily traddy in Eastern Orhtodoxy:
Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2018/06/kallistos-ware-comes-out-for-homosexual-marriage/
The Church on earth will live on until the end of time with the Pope as her head.
There can be no Church without the Pope. But if the Pope is a heretic, he cannot be the head of a body he does not belong to.
Our Lady of La Salette is not a source of dogma.
Let us turn to Suárez, instead. In his famous Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against the Errors of Anglicanism, chap. 5, we read:
When the meaning of the words, then, is made plain and understood in this fashion, we say that the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic Faith, and the Roman Church has not defected and could not defect therefrom, because of the Chair of Peter present in it. This assertion we propose as certain and necessary in the Catholic Faith, and we collect it from the divine Scripture as follows: the faith of Peter was Catholic and could not defect; but the faith of the Roman Church is the faith of Peter; therefore the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic Faith, from which that See can never defect. The argumentation is legitimate, but the individual propositions assumed in it need to be proved. The first part, then, is known of itself, namely that the faith of Peter was Catholic; for, if it is understood of the person of Peter, it is not brought into doubt even by heretics; for the faith of Peter was what has been preached to the whole world from the beginning; and it most of all is apostolic and primitive. But if it be understood of the See of Peter, even the Protestants themselves confess that for many years the same Catholic Faith endured in the same See of Peter, and Jerome and Augustine sufficiently testify to the fact up to their own times, the former in his epistle to Damasus about the name 'hypostasis', and the latter in his book Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch.4, where, among the four things that were most justly keeping him in the bosom of the Catholic Church, he numbers this one: "From the See itself of Peter the apostle, to whom the Lord after his resurrection commended the feeding of his sheep, the succession of priests up to the present bishop." Where he openly supposes that the Catholic Church was then the one which was conjoined with the See of Peter and which contained the sheep commended to Peter, and hence that the Catholic Faith had persisted in that See up to his time, which will be confirmed in the point following by many testimonies and reasons.
5. It remains, therefore, for us to prove the second part assumed in the proposition, namely that this faith could not defect in Peter, not only as to his person but also as to his see, and consequently not only for some definite time but simply as long as the Church of Christ will last. Now the proof is chiefly from the words of Christ, Luke 22.31-32: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen they brethren." For rightly did Tertullian
say, bk. De Fuga in Persecut., ch.22, that Christ had there asked that the devil not be permitted so much that Peter's faith should be in peril. Which prayer was efficacious and obtained what
was asked for, as is sufficiently proved by the excellence of Christ himself, for he was heard for his reverence in those things which he requested absolutely, as is made plain in the present case
by the words: "I have prayed for thee;" and it is made more plain, or rather the granting of the prayer and its infallible effect is supposed in those last words: "And when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren." And therefore does Pope Leo IX well ask: "Will there be anyone of such great madness as to dare to think that his prayer, in whom to will is to be able, is in any respect vain?" So there is in this part almost no controversy or difficulty. But there could be difficulty in another point, namely whether that prayer was made only for the person of Peter, and therefore whether its effect ended with him or rather was made for the See of Peter in his person and will thus last as long as the See lasts; therefore what remains is for us to prove that it must be understood in the second way.
We prove it in the first place from the authority of many Supreme Pontiffs, who, recognizing this prerogative of their dignity and of their See, proved it from these words of Christ, and though they seem to speak in their own cause yet they are most worthy of trust, both because they are very old and taught this as by continuous tradition, and also because many of them are saints and martyrs who sealed the true and Catholic Faith with their blood, and finally because the most ancient Fathers bestowed the same honor on the Roman See and Faith. So, the above testimony is used to confirm this truth by Pope Lucius in his epistle to the bishops of Gaul and Spain, near the end, where he says that his See holds unerring the norm of the apostolic faith as it received it from its own authors, the princes of the apostles of Christ, according to the divine promise of our Savior, and he refers to the words cited. Like things are contained in Pope Marcus' epistle to Athanasius, which is in vol.1 of the Epistles, although it is not referred to in the volumes of the Councils, and in Felix I's epistle 3 to Benignus, and in Pope Agatho's epistle to the emperor Constantine, which was read in act.4 of the Sixth Synod, and was approved in act.8, and in Nicholas I's epistle to the emperor Michael, after the middle, and in Leo IX's epistle to Michael, ch.7, and in Innocent III, ch. 'Maiores', De Baptismo. But more fully than by the others is this point made plain by Pope Leo, in serm.2, In Natali Petri et Pauli, ch.3, where, after having set down the words of the Gospel, he subjoins: "The danger was common to all the apostles from their trial by fear, and they had equal need of the help of divine protection, since the devil desired to attack them all, to destroy them all; and yet a special care is taken up by Christ for Peter, and he prays in particular for Peter's faith, as if the state of the others would be surer if the mind of the Prince were not conquered. In Peter, therefore, the courage of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the firmness, which is bestowed through Christ on Peter, is through Peter conferred on the apostles. For after his resurrection too the Lord, after the keys of the kingdom, said three times with mystical insinuation to the blessed apostle Peter to each of his three professions of eternal love: 'Feed my sheep;' which duty even now the pious pastor without doubt does, and performs the mandate of the Lord, confirming us with exhortations and not ceasing to pray for us, that we not be overcome by any temptation." Which words are repeated by the same Pontiff in sermon 3 De Assumptione Sua, and he adds: "Justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our leader, giving thanks to the eternal Redeemer King, our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave so much power to him whom he made prince of the whole Church, that if anything even in our times is rightly done through us, it is to be assigned to his work, to his governance, to whom it was said: 'And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'"
6. From these words are other reasons collected by which this sense is confirmed. One is taken from a change in Christ's words; for first he spoke to all the apostles, predicting that almost all were to be tempted; but afterwards he says especially to Peter: "I have prayed for thee;" therefore he also obtained something special for him. But personal perseverance was not unique to Peter, for Christ prayed for the others too, saying, John 17.11: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me." And although at the time, when he prayed for Peter, he had not yet offered that universal prayer, nevertheless there would have been no peculiar favor for Peter unless he had requested some more special privilege for him. But Christ, in that singular way of calling Peter so that he would pay heed, "Simon, Simon," (for such is what the Greek has), and of praying for him, wished without doubt to signify a greater prerogative. Nay, if the thing is attentively considered, in each place Christ the Lord prayed for Peter and for all the apostles and for the Universal Church present and future, but yet in a diverse way; for in the writing of John he first expressly prayed for all the apostles, of whom Peter was one and special, and in them was the Church virtually contained, for whose sake was that prayer especially made which a little later Christ completed when he said, v.20-21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word: That they all may be one," namely with the unity of the Faith and of the Catholic Church. In the writing of Luke, however, Christ directly and expressly prayed for Peter alone, but indirectly and by a certain consequence he prayed also for the other apostles, as he indicated in the subjoined words: "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.""So that the firmness which is bestowed through Christ on Peter is through Peter conferred on the apostles," as we related a little above from Pope Leo. And hence that prayer is extended to the whole Church, which is also comprehended under the name of brothers, as Theophylact indicated on that place, saying: "The sense is plain: Because I have you as Prince of the disciples, when, having denied me, you have wept and come to repentance, confirm the rest. For this befits you, who after me are the rock and foundation of the Church." Hence Pope Agatho above said: "The Lord promised that Peter's faith would not fail, and he admonished him to confirm his brothers, which that the Apostolic Pontiffs, predecessors to my littleness, always confidently did, is acknowledged by all." And Leo IX above indicated the same sense when he said: "From the See of the Prince of the apostles, that is from the Roman Church, as well through Peter himself as through his successors, the inventions of all the heretics have been rebuked, convicted, conquered, and the hearts of the brothers in the faith of Peter, which hitherto has not failed nor will it ever fail, are strengthened."
7. Hence, from these last words the sense of the first promise is made more open, and another very fine reason for the aforesaid interpretation is given. For thus is Peter here commanded to confirm his brothers as he is ordered in John 21 to feed Christ's sheep; for they who are here called brothers and there sheep are the same; but there they are called sheep on account of the mildness and obedience of subjects, but here they are called brothers so as to show that the duty of an ecclesiastical pastor is not to dominate but to confirm as brothers those who are weaker, "of a ready mind…being ensamples to the flock," as the same Peter said, 1 Peter 5.2-3. Just as, therefore, "feed my sheep," was said, not to Simon for his person alone but to Peter for the office which was conferred on him, that it might endure in his successors, so when it is said to him, "strengthen thy brethren," a certain chief part of that office is signified in advance, which is to strengthen and as it were sustain the brothers and the Church in the true faith; for although this is done principally by divine virtue, yet this virtue uses man as instrument, so that it might govern men in the way that is fitted to men. And although others, pastors and doctors of the Church, cooperate therein by teaching and preaching, nevertheless to supply it by legitimate and ordinary power, and by an authority that is certain, discriminating the false from the true, condemning heresies, and defining Catholic doctrine, is proper to him to whom it was said: "Strengthen thy brethren." Hence, just as this office is necessary in the Church for the preservation of the true faith, so those words were said to Peter by reason of a pastoral office that was going to flow perpetually into the Church and to endure there always; therefore too the first promise, "that thy faith fail not," was made, not merely to the person, but to the office and See of Peter. For that is why Christ specially prayed for him and gained that privilege for him, because the office of strengthening the brethren required that help on the part of God; therefore, as the office was going to be perpetual in the See of Peter, so also the privilege. And all this is signified by Leo I in those words: "He prays in particular for Peter's faith, as if the state of the others would be surer if the mind of the Prince is not conquered," and in the other authors whom we referred to above. And more openly Theophylact, after he has said: "because I have you as Prince of the disciples…confirm the rest," adds: "But one may understand that it was said not only about the apostles, that they were confirmed by Peter, but about all who will be the faithful up to the end of the age." Which although he seems afterwards to expound it by way of example, because in the person of Peter it preceded his weeping for his offense and remains perpetually in the memories of men, yet Christ did not speak of example but of confirmation by the word of faith, and therefore the better understanding is that this is done perpetually through the see of Peter. And this truth and interpretation of the promise can be made more fully firm by comparison of this place with the others on which the primacy of Peter is founded. Which is also signified by Leo I in the cited words when he compares these words, "Strengthen thy brethren," with those, "Feed my sheep;" which comparison we have already clarified. Hence although this promise be not so clear, we would collect sufficiently from the sole office of feeding the sheep of Christ in the doctrine of the faith that this privilege in the See of Peter is necessary. Because if in that See the faith could waver, the faith could be in danger in the whole Church of Christ, both because the Church is bound to obey Peter and his successors when they teach from his chair (as is collected from the words of Christ mentioned, because the first and most necessary food of the faithful is the true doctrine of faith), and also because otherwise there would not be a sure reason for discriminating true doctrine from false in the Church, and thus the faithful could not be confirmed, let alone confirmed unshaken in the Catholic Faith. Which reason we will urge more in what follows. And this truth is similarly confirmed by the other promise of Christ: "Upon this rock I will build my Church," for that rock is Peter and his successors, as we will show below. But he is called rock because of his firmness in holding up the building, and therefore, as the building of the Church is going to be perpetual, so the rock is too, that it might be suited for holding up the building. Therefore, just as the Church could not be perpetual unless its faith could not fail, so neither would the rock be suited, nor have the firmness, for holding up the building if it could fail in the faith. And therefore rightly did Origen say, tract.1, on Matthew: "Neither against the rock, on which Christ builds his Church, nor against the Church itself, will the gates of hell prevail." And Cyril in Thesaurus (as cited in the Catena of St. Thomas on Matthew 16) said: "According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter (that is the Roman Church) remains immaculate from all seduction and heretical trickery, over all leaders, and bishops, and over all primates of the churches and of the peoples, in its Pontiffs, in the fullness of faith and authority of Peter. And although other churches may be put to shame by the error of certain people, it reigns alone unshaken, etc." Which words, though they are not now found in Cyril's Thesaurus, are very trustworthy on the basis of the authority of St. Thomas.
I'm not sure you appreciate the gravity of the situation. According to traditional understanding, there can be no Church without the pope. If the pope should preach heresy, he would be ipso facto deposed, as per Bellarmine. To have five consecutive heretical popes unchallenged preaching heresy, along with the whole episcopal body of the Church, is unthinkable. It amounts to defection. Unless, of course, they're not heretics and the tridentine faith could legitimately be reformed.
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay, Michael Wilson, Fleur-de-Lys
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 03:18:14 PM
But alongside that succession of heretics pretending to be popes, we have to have true popes as well. The hierarchical and jurisdictional Church cannot simply disappear out of sight and be taken over by heretics. The Church must be visible and recognizable as such until the end of time.
Although I sympathize, I'm afraid this is simply your interpretation of the current events. The apocalypse has been predicted many times in the past but the earth kept spinning around.
Someday it will surely come but "as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2).
So your point is what? You maintain that
1. We can't have had a succession of heretic popes.
2. We can't have had a long interregnum without popes.
3. The teaching of the post-Vatican II church is not the teaching of the pre-Vatican II church.
Well, if all three of these are true, then either Catholicism is wrong or you're wrong.
The apocalypse will come 'as a thief in the night' to those who aren't expecting it, because that's how thieves in the night come, unexpectedly. But Scripture also provides signs that the apocalypse is near, for those that might hear them.
According to St Paul, before the 'Son of Perdition' comes, there has to be a revolt and the taking out of the way of 'the one who holds'. You've come out with the very familiar dismissal that many people have predicted the apocalypse before and they've all been wrong. But this doesn't address the argument.
I've been hoping for some time that someone will provide a reasonable argument as to why Vatican II is not the revolt. But no-one has. Perhaps you can.
You must at least agree that if Vatican II is the revolt, and if the Chair of Peter is empty because the one who holds has been taken out of the way, then the problems you cite are solved.
So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.
Either we can have heretic popes or we can't, and if we can't, either we don't have any popes or those we have aren't heretics. If they aren't heretics, then either the teaching has not been substantially changed or, the faith having changed, the Church has contradicted itself on that very point. But, even if Vatican II might be twisted into an orthodox reading, it's a patent fact that the religion of Francis I is not that of any pope before the council, unless you believe in square circles and 2 added to 2 giving 5.
It's moot to me, because I didn't sign up for the religion of current Roman hierarchy in the first place. I would never have converted to it in the first place, and I would sooner reject the doctrine of the Papacy than subscribe to a religion which I hate. So even if Francis turns out to be a genuine Pope, it doesn't affect the substance and practice of my faith, and since "heresy" has lost all meaning if the faith of revelation is mutable into the faith of Satanic novelty, I don't give two hoots about it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 05:14:46 PM by Kreuzritter »
Bickering over whether or not Vatican II is reconcilable to tradiiton is moot now. Old hat. Yesterday's news. Because it is undeniable that Francis, the current claimant to the Papacy, along with much of the visible hierarchy, believes, practices and teaches a different religion to the historical one of the Roman church.
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo
The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
Quote from: Pope Paul IV
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact,
determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,
even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the
aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the
Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,
has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction,
sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash
presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him
know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles,
Peter and Paul
Francis has been publicly challenged twice for error and has refused to recant. He's an heretic. I believe he has also promulgated heresy in the AAS. This publication of course is null and void. We are in the hour of decision. I expect a major schism soon. We shall see.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."
"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross. Weep for your sins."
I always find it ironic: Francis has stated that the divorced can remarry. That is heresy. We should join the Eastern Orthodox where it is taught you can divorce and remarry. Come again?
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 04:47:33 PM
My point is that there is an inherent paradox when it comes to Traditional Catholicism.
Can it be solved? I don't know. I would hope so.
Traditional Catholics are the standard-bearers of a faith that, as far as a few substantial points of doctrine and practice, the Church no longer believes in. But the validity of their cause depends upon a Church that no longer exists, except for a few stoic strongholds. There's a romantic appeal to it, to be sure, but also a paradox that defies understanding and silences the heart.
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay, Kreuzritter
Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.
Unless Ecumenical Councils and the ordinary magisterium of the Church and Popes are fallible. Or unless Traditional Tridentine Catholicism needed legitimate reform.
The cat is pretty much out of the bag now.
Maybe, but if Frankie's cult isn't the abomination of desolation, I sure as hell don't want to be around for the real one.
The following users thanked this post: james03, Michael Wilson