What do the two men in this image, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew, have in common? Neither one believes in the authority of the pope as understood by the Catholic Church.
In a letter to the Bishops of France, Pope St. Pius X wrote of the Sillon, a socio-political movement that formally existed there from 1894-1910:
Their leaders are self-confessed and irrepressible idealists … they have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood… In an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put forward the Gospel, but … interpreted in their own way; and what is even more serious, they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted Christ. (Notre Charge Apostolique)
Sound like anyone you know? (HINT: Think bishop in white…)
In one of his many homilies lashing out at tradition-minded Catholics, Pope Francis said:
This group of Christians in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord and want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one. These are the triumphalist Christians.
This raises some questions; first, what exactly is a “triumphalist”?
In his Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J., provides a very useful definition:
Triumphalism: a term of reproach leveled at the Catholic Church for the claim that she has the fullness of divine revelation and the right to pass judgment on the personal and social obligations of humankind. (Etym. Latin triumphus, public rejoicing for a victory.)
Furthermore, we might ask, what precisely is this “real” Resurrection that some Catholics, according to Pope Francis, tend to exaggerate?
According to Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, it was the Resurrection from whence Our Lord:
Took the opportunity to call himself King, confirming the title publicly … solemnly proclaiming that all power was given Him in heaven and on earth … words that can only be taken to indicate the greatness of His power and the infinite extent of His kingdom.
That’s the real Resurrection, and I’d say it’s pretty darn majestic, wouldn’t you?
In fact, we might wonder how Pope Francis could imagine that it’s even possible for the human mind to conceive of something that’s more majestic still.
The answer is at once simple and tragic; it is because his is a view of the Resurrection that pales in comparison to the “real one,” and that necessarily means that he, like the leaders of the Sillon, witness to a “diminished and distorted” Christ.
Such a view necessarily gives rise to a similarly diminished and distorted view of the priesthood, and therefore the papacy itself.
In the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis says:
The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head … does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others.
Consider very carefully what Pope Francis is saying here: He is telling us that the dignity derived from priestly ordination is no greater than that of baptism – something that even the heretics have received!
Those who sentire cum ecclesia, by contrast, believe as the former Bishop Giuseppe Sarto believed when he wrote:
If the faithless modern world has stripped the priest of that halo of veneration with which he was formerly crowned, it is more than necessary that in our times he should by his bearing win once again the people’s respect for his high dignity and propriety. [Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Mantua, 25 August, 1895]
For greater insight into the prevailing view of the priesthood, and by extension the papacy, among the current Holy Father’s inner circle, consider the words of Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, the man handpicked by Pope Francis to lead the group of cardinals advising him on the Curia’s reorganization:
The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church.
God bless Cardinal Rodríguez for his frankness!
You see, for him and those who think like him, including the pope, Our Blessed Lord didn’t rise from the dead victorious unto Kingship, but rather as the itinerant preacher who is prepared to be “crucified by the powers of this world” all over again!
Pope Francis, apparently, has great difficulty reconciling “humble service” with the uniquely majestic dignity inherent to kingly authority, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
In truth, Christ the King is the perfect synthesis of these attributes; even as those who act in His person as priests, bishops, and ultimately as His Vicar (the Sovereign Roman Pontiff) are at times persecuted in this world by those who reject Him.
And yet, Pope Francis can only seem to imagine that he is the Vicar of a Christ who is the servant-preacher alone, apart from being the King who reigns over all men and all nations. Thus is his Christology, and likewise his understanding of his own office, rendered “diminished and distorted.”
As such, it’s little wonder that the current Bishop of Rome struggles just to call to himself “pope,” much less behave like one in his relations with those who reject the pope’s God-given authority (e.g., bowing his head to receive a “blessing” from Justin Welby, a heretic layman in a Halloween costume.)
This brings me to the Holy Father’s recent comments to the schismatic Orthodox during his trip to Turkey:
I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.
Oh how I wish Patriarch Bartholomew would have responded, “Thank you! Please draft the ‘shared profession of faith’ for our review!”
As for what that “profession” would contain, no one can say for certain, but based upon all that has been said thus far, every indication seems to be that Pope Francis imagines a “unifying” profession that does not include any requirement on the part of the Orthodox to acknowledge, much less heed, the authority of the pope.
Upon the Orthodox acceptance of said profession, the million dollar question would finally be answered – at least for those who as yet haven’t reasoned their way to the punchline – and that is, what would the subsequent “unity” look like?
The answer: It would look exactly like it does now, with the Orthodox still performing “Orders of Second Marriage” for the civilly divorced, condoning abortion in limited cases, rejecting the filioque and, of course, the Office of Peter itself.
In other words, the dirty little not-so-well-kept secret is that there is no destination for the ecumenical movement such as it exists in the Church today, no matter how “humble” the man leading the charge may be; there is only endless dialogue, emotional pleas, and symbolic gestures. That’s it.
It can never lead to authentic unity; only the conversion of heathens, heretics and schismatics to the Holy Catholic Church can do that.
The reason the ecumaniacs of today, including Pope Francis, find this simple truth so very difficult to embrace is equally as simple: they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted Christ.
“want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one”
Perhaps he means that “they” (i.e. Catholics) want to make the Resurrection a historical event, like the multiplication of the loaves. After all, Bergoglio has also attempted to diminish our “majestic” view of the latter miracle as follows:
“This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.”
(Homily, Castel Gandolfo, June 2nd, 2013)
I really don’t know WHAT to say anymore. Your analysis is so right!!
I’m getting to the point where I am having much difficulty just looking a Bergoglio. There is only one good thing I can say about this papacy. It should get all Catholics down on their knees begging the intercession of Our Lady and St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church. Heaven, please help us!!!
The resurrection can never be represented as more majestic than it actually is. Pope Francis bows to man, not God.
“This group of Christians in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord and want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one.”
—
Maybe the original Spanish/Italian/Latin/whatever is more clear grammatically. Does “theirs” refer to “group,” “hearts,” “the Risen Lord,” “resurrection,” or “the real one”?
“I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.” When is Pope Francis going to say that to the SSPX?
Dear Louie,
On the Dignity of the Priesthood, you wrote:
“Consider very carefully what Pope Francis is saying here: He is telling us that the dignity derived from priestly ordination is no greater than that of baptism – something that even the heretics have received!
___
In stark contrast to that, St. Alphonus De Ligouri and others remind of the innumerable teachings the Saints and Church Fathers on the dignity of the priesthood, like this small sampling:
–St. Francis de Sales once related that God favored him with the visible presence of his Angel guardian, who before he had received priesthood always remained at his right and preceded him, but afterwards walked on his left and refused to go before him.
–St. Francis of Assisi used to say, “If I saw an Angel and a priest, I would bend my knee first to the priest and then to the Angel.”
–The holy king St. Boleslaus had so great a veneration for priests, that he would not dare to sit in their presence.
–St. Bernard: “The Priesthood transcends all the dignities of kings, of emperors, and of Angels.”
–St. Clement: “as much as the soul is more noble than the body, so much is the priesthood more excellent than royalty.”
–St. Peter deBlois said, “They willingly bend their knee before the priest of God; they kiss his hands, and with bowed down head receIve his benediction.”
–St. John Chrysostom said: “The sacerdotal dignity “effaces the royal dignity; hence the king inclines his head under the hand of the priest to receive his blessing.”
–In the Council of Nice, the Emperor Constantine wished to sit in the last place, after all the priests, and on a seat lower than that which they occupied; he would not even sit down without their permission.
http://www.fisheaters.com/holyorders3.html
My prayer for Pope Francis: O Lord, may his pontificate be brief, and may the damage done by it be quickly rectified by his followers.
I know several Eastern Orthodox parishioners, and they greatly venerate their priests and bishops. To be “ecumenical,” shouldn’t Pope Francis insist Catholics do the same for our priests and bishops?
The average Catholic sees what is happening, and senses that something important has gone very wrong, but we don’t always have the words to express our intuition. You have put into words exactly what the problem is: they believe in a diminished and distorted Christ. A brilliant use of historical quotations. This post will be a classic.
God bless those who weep over the ruin wrought by the lies of the hirelings ‘paid’ to be shepherds.
–
Christ’s flock need to see their Lord in His glory – the Glory of God Almighty is Truth!!!
–
What was the point of the Transfiguration? “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him.” It was to see Christ in His glory. The Transfiguration follows quickly on the heels of St Peter’s confession, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God”. And then Peter sees that He is most certainly the ‘Christ’, in the Transfiguration. So we who confess Christ; are we to be deprived of His glory bbecause of the political aberration of contemporary, breathless, clay-worshipping false sons? No. The Church is obligated to show Christ in His glory. If an entity claiming to be Church shuns such realities, it is not Church.
–
Christ is Sovereign, the 0Glory beyond compare. If one claiming to be ‘pope’ is foul enough to ‘bury’ thisTruth, then let him be buried with his lies until he dig his way out of death with the Truth.
Tomorrow is the feast of St.Francis Xavier.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body -Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/therefore-all-must-be-converted-to-him.html
Yes, and hence that terrible tension: I want to spit at some priests and bishops who are publicly unfaithful and cowardly; yet I must kneel before them because they bring Our Lord onto the “table” when they ‘celebrate’ Mass.
—
How do we do this?
The Pope’s bowing and asking for blessings from those who refuse to fully recognize his Papal authority, (including his role as the Vicar of Christ the King), is another frustrating example of his putting tradition in the dumpster, while promoting indifferentist ecumenism that deprives those in error of the truth.
__
And he continues repeating the claim–again on this last visit to Turkey, that “The Holy Spirit always leads forward to what is “new” never looksback to what is old. Yet that “progressivist” mantra was contradicted by Our Lord’s own words in the Gospel of Matthew 13:52, when just after telling the parables of the treasure hidden in a field and the pearl of great price, and likening the desire for them to how we should all desire the kingdom of Heaven, He said of those with real wisdom:
” Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.”
___
Pope St. Pius X warned in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” (Sept. 8, 1907) of the dangers of modernists within the Church, who twist ideas in ways that attack Her. It sounds to us like he’s talking directly to the faithful remnant of today:
” We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind…. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before.”
___
..the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised. ” .
–.the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.” “… animated by a false zeal for the Church,…imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, [they]put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and..assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and
ordinary man.”
___
“..they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic…they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality.”
–…” It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists,as they are commonly and rightly called, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.
===========
We continue to ask God’s mercy on us all, as we pray for the unceasing intercession of Our Lady, for the conversion of all modernists-including Popes-both current and “retired”, to the fullness of the Faith of all Ages.
Dear Barbara,
We know the feeling. We find ourselves avoiding the worst ones whenever there’s an option. But when that’s not possible, it can help to imagine them in a state of full knowledge of their sins, and sincerely repentant, ready to beg forgiveness and make amends. There are miraculous conversions recorded, and Our Lady has us all praying for the Graces necessary to make them possible. And lastly, we try to think of people as never in a “fixed” state of being, always changing. Realistically this means some of these priests are getting worse by the minute. But our “hope” must be for the opposite.
These don’t always work, but .they can help. 🙂 🙂
A propos the current crisis, blogger Steven Speray brings up an interesting topic here:
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Vincent includes the following statement:
“The saint, thoroughly convinced of the legitimacy of the claims of the Avignon pontiffs, was one of their strongest champions.”
At the same time, the Encyclopedia notes the opposing view and “activism” of St. Catherine of Siena:
“In the meanwhile the Great Schism had broken out in the Church. From the outset Catherine enthusiastically adhered to the Roman claimant, Urban VI, who in November, 1378, summoned her to Rome. In the Eternal City she spent what remained of her life, working strenuously for the reformation of the Church, serving the destitute and afflicted, and dispatching eloquent letters in behalf of Urban to high and low in all directions.”
Obviously neither of the two were barred from Heaven for holding contradictory opinions on the legitimacy of the pope, and working to persuade others to accept them.
What about extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
I spoke to the Orthodox bishop who offers Mass at the Church of St. Clement in Rome. It is a Catholic church where the Catholic religious community there is pro- ecumenism as understood by the liberals.
He said they also accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to the Orthod Church we Catholics are outside the Church.
They also produced their version of Dominues Iesus after Pope John Paul II gave us that document in 2000.
Dumb_ox:
From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts.Sedevacantists do not realize this.
Dumb_ox:
Obviously neither of the two were barred from Heaven for holding contradictory opinions on the legitimacy of the pope, and working to persuade others to accept them.
Lionel:
Neither the sedevantists or traditionalists since the time of Pope Pius XII to today are aware that they are making the same irrational error. The popes accept the result the sedevantists reject the non traditional conclusion.
For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments and also the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. This is a contradiction.It is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can you say that de facto God is not limited to the Sacraments and also say God is limited to the Sacraments for salvation?
This error was not corrected by Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis has also accepted it as have all the cardinals and bishops.None of the sedevantists or traditionalists have made this issue public.
Pope Pius XII and all the popes who have followed him have accepted that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in the present times. They would have to be visible and known to us to be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. We have it here once again.Defacto every one needs to enter the Church ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) but some do not have to enter the Church for salvation?
The popes have been interpreting magisterial documents with this inference of being able to see in heaven and on earth people who are saved with the baptism of desire etc. They can see the dead ?! It is with this irrationality that theology produces heretical results. The liberals accept the result and the traditionalists and sedevacantists reject it.
Sedevancantism is unfortunate. They use the same irrational premise which changes doctrine and theology. It is the same error being made by the popes.Sedevacantists have only have to avoid the inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents, example Vatican Council II, and the result is traditional.
No one has yet explained this to Pope Francis. This irrationality has been the hallmark of the Jesuits since the time they expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney from their community.
Once this error is identified and made public how would Patriarch Bartolomew, see a Catholic Church, in which Vatican Council II is pro Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
-Lionel Andrades
Feast of St.Francis Xavier.
Happy Mission Day ! CraigW.
Pending matter from the last post:
CraigW:
Would you say the SSPX is wrong here ? A theoretical possibility ( baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) is considered a defacto exception to the dogma EENS.The SSPX USA is following the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
More distortion, this time from Cardinal Koch:
–
“ZENIT: Could you shed some light on the increasing number of Evangelicals converting to Catholicism under (the pontificate of) Pope Francis?
–
Cardinal Koch: I don’t think that’s the goal of the meetings, to convert the others. It was a conviction of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and similarly thought by Pope Francis that proselytism is not a way of the Catholic Church and of ecumenism. However, when a person wants to convert to the Catholic Church this is a human right of religious freedom. But the goal of the meetings is to deepen the relationship of brotherhood, of friendship, between the Pope and Evangelicals, and to give common witness about Christ, about the presence of God in the world, and to deepen the missionary dimension of the Church.”
–
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-koch-on-ecumenical-dialogue-in-turkey-russia-with-evangelicals
–
Cardinal Koch “letting the cat out of the bag” – ecumenism is not directed to conversion – “proselytism is not a way of the Catholic Church”. Cardinal Koch distorting teachings of the Church – (1) it is merely a matter of the so-called “human right of religious freedom” for a non-catholic to enter the Church and (2) the Church and heretical sects share in common Christian witness and mission: “But the goal of the meetings is to deepen the relationship of brotherhood, of friendship, between the Pope and Evangelicals, and to give common witness about Christ, about the presence of God in the world, and to deepen the missionary dimension of the Church.”
–
Even by VII standards, Cardinal Koch is not orthodox. The question of whether a non-Catholic should enter the Church isn’t a question of a “want” or human right to enter the Church one prefers but rather a need – an obligation owed to God and a necessity for salvation.
–
As discussed in the forum on whether Mortalium Animos is still the law of the Church Lumen Gentium echoes the immemorial Catholic teaching that non-Catholics who are aware of the Church and her unique status as the ark of salvation need to enter the Church: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” [LG 14]
–
So Cardinal Koch doesn’t accurately present the teaching of VII, never mind the pre-conciliar magisterium.
–
Regarding the ability of the Church to give common witness with the sects, how exactly is this possible? Many in the sects call the Catholic Church a false church or “the whore of Babylon” and call the Pope the anti-Christ. Other sects deny fundamental tenets of Catholic belief and morality. In view of this Cardinal Koch, how exactly is it possible for the Church to give common witness of Christ with the sects?
Proselytism is the sine qua non of the Church for without entry into the Church, a man cannot be saved. So Cardinal Koch does not want the Church to save souls. How evil.
Lionel, you’re plain wrong about BOD being an exception to EENS. The problem is that you define your own Magisterium, in opposition to the Fathers, Popes, and Doctors of the Church. Trent explicitly said in fact or in desire, and every theologian since the Council of Trent believed it so. Only the late Fr. Feeney dared to supposedly “improve on the Fathers,” Popes, and theologians.
And BOD isn’t theoretical. According to the 1917 CIC, catechumens are considered baptized if they die without baptism through no fault of their own.
QuoVadisPetre
Lionel, you’re plain wrong about BOD being an exception to EENS.
Lionel:
I am not saying it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
1.I do not know of any any exceptions in 2014.
2.I do not know of any magisterial document before 1949 which says it is an exception.
3.I do not know of any magisterial document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire cases are visible to us.
4.I accept the baptism of desire as a theoretical possibility. It is hypothethical for me and known only to God. So I do not reject it. For me these hypothetical cases will always be followed by the baptism of water, if God wants it.
________________________________________________
The problem is that you define your own Magisterium, in opposition to the Fathers, Popes, and Doctors of the Church.
Lionel:
I support the magisterium before 1949 which was traditional. I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as 1) contradicting the Magisterium before 1949 and also Vatican Council II (AG 7) and 2) which irrationally assumes that those who are saved with the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to Tradition on salvation. This is a new doctrine and it is irrational.The magisterium contradicts itself here. This can be seen very clearly in CCC 1257.
_________________________________________________
Trent explicitly said in fact or in desire, and every theologian since the Council of Trent believed it so.
Lionel:
The Council of Trent mentioned the baptism of desire. This is fine.Trent did not say that these cases were visible to us or an explicit exception to the dogma.This was the mistake made by the American theologians in Boston in the 1940’s.
__________________________________________
Only the late Fr. Feeney dared to supposedly “improve on the Fathers,” Popes, and theologians.
Lionel:
He affirmed the dogma according to the Church Councils which did not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. No Church document before 1949 says that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the possibility of a catechumen having the baptism of desire and being justified .This theoretical case would be saved once God gave him the grace of the baptism of water.
So the St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA do not deny the baptism of desire. They assume that these hypothethical cases for us, would also have the baptism of water for salvation.
Their position is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and Vatican Council II (AG 7).
_______________________________________________________
And BOD isn’t theoretical. According to the 1917 CIC, catechumens are considered baptized if they die without baptism through no fault of their own.
Lionel:
Baptism of desire (BOD) is always theoretical for us! It can only be known and visible to God.
_________________________________________________
According to the 1917 CIC, catechumens are considered baptized if they die without baptism through no fault of their own.
Lionel:
True and this case is hypothetical. It is not of someone personally known to us.
_________________________________________________
Lionel.
So the SSPX here has mistaken hypothethical cases as being known in the present life.They have picked up the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office.The error was made by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops uncritically followed the error. See these links, would you agree with me ?
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
_______________________________________
Lionel:
This error ,would also be Patriarch Bartolomew’s understanding of Vatican Council II, as he thinks Catholics accept it.
If it is realized that LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc are hypothetical for us and so do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Patriarch Bartolomew would discover that for Catholics, Vatican Council assumes that he is on the way to Hell. Since there would be nothing in the Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 which says schismatics’ are oriented to ‘the fires of Hell’.
It would also mean that there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church. No one can be saved without ‘faith and baptism’. This would mean that there are no known exceptions to the Catholic doctrine on the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political instituions.
And of course there would be no known exception to traditional ecumenism and ecclesiology.
________________________________
The only specific persons we know have been saved are those who have been found to be saints by the Church. For everyone else, we can only know that IF they satisfied the necessary conditions at death (including baptism of water, desire, blood) they will be saved. For the vast majority of people (other than baptised infants) who die in the Faith and apparently in a state of grace, we cannot know definitively, though we’d have good reason to believe they are saved, and ought to pray for their souls.
What a weird ‘age’. The “pope’s” bowiing is a guantlet. Bow with the ‘pope’ or cleave to the wounds of Christ. What an amnesiotic bunch of whiners we are! Either you acknowledge the working of the Holy Ghost in the embattled wretchedness of Rome for centuries upon ceeturies, or you go, ‘well, embattled or whatever, apostatised and lies, who cares, its all the bloody same!’ St Paul cautioned us about the removal of the ‘restrainer’ in Thessalonions. Some Catholics might think the ‘restrainer’ is the true Peter – cleary, not many.
–
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x41e2_omd-joan-of-arc_music
The doctrine is certain, not hypothetical. As for whether or not any specific person has been saved, that we cannot generally know, except where it has been revealed by God to the Church that he is a saint, or there is no other possibility (e.g., baptised infant, incapable of personal sin).
PS. Apologies Mr Verrecchio; but here’s a wee poll – who of the visitors of this site honestly, heart-felt-edly, believe the Bergoglios of the WORLD are the representatives of Christ Almighty = no less, actuallty the singular Vicars (repreentative/substitue/stewards etc) of Christ extant? Sedecavantists were shocked awake at some point in the past six decades when they saw the worship, teaching and daily discipline heirarchs, and simple monks and nuns and all else given a ‘new’ rule that presented a different ‘Jesus’ and a different ‘Tradition’. The Catholic Canon, the Catholic Apostles have taught and warned us through antiquity, that there will be those who will teach a ‘different Jesus’ and a ‘different Tradition’. Read the Epistles. St Paul warns that we will be fed a false jesus and a false tradition, and here we are eating up the same a bunch of Chocolate Factory gluttons.
Heavens forbid we should make a habit of saying, ‘saved!’, ‘not saved’: we should leave that to protestants (I should know). In terms of Truth and not Truth, any simple Cathoic should know better these days than the putrid creeps claiming to be the successors of St Peter.
PSS. re: the filioque thing – much too prostetation. The idea of the Holy Spirit’s beautiful flow to the comfort of humankind was not what cut the cord between east and west re the belly-button of the Bride…it was Pride. It was ‘St Photius’ who examunicated the west who were then begged to save them from the Judaic-heresy know as Islam. Read the writing on God’s wall, people, not the crocadile tears of creeps like Bergoglio.
PSS. “And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. (2Thess. 2)
–
‘He that do holdeth/the restrainer (of evil, antichrist – has been enterpreted as the authentic Popes, which, were ‘overcome’, in 1958).
point being – the ‘filioque’ is nothing but a red herring. Both ‘sides’ had been happy with proceeds from the Father or From tbe Father and the Son for a while. As part of tradition ‘from the Father and the Son’ had been around for a while uncontested because the mysteries of the Trinity were mysteries, even though we must, unconstestably, concede to the Truth of them. The real measure of the ‘schism’ between east and west that one side (the east) was sinking in the Judaic-Mohamet misery and needed help. The east conceded too much and the west gave too much.
Lynda
The doctrine is certain, not hypothetical.
Lionel:
Baptism of desire is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.It refers to a hypothetical case.
This doctrine does not say that it is an exception to Tradition. It was made an exception in 1949.
Can you quote any pope or saint before 1949 who said that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ? There is no precedent and if there was he would be making an objective mistake.
_______________________________________
Lynda:
As for whether or not any specific person has been saved, that we cannot generally know, except where it has been revealed by God to the Church that he is a saint, or there is no other possibility (e.g., baptised infant, incapable of personal sin).
Lionel:
Yes we can be sure the saints are in Heaven since the Church says so.
The Church also says that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) So the Church is saying that Patriarch Bartolomew needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell. This is a magisterial teaching.
The Church also says that all need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation, Patriarch Bartolomew does not have Catholic Faith, which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Church( according to Tradition):they do not accept the papacy. Neither do they accept the Catholic Sacraments through which God saves. .According to the Magisterium after Vatican Council II, Patriarch Bartolomew is oriented to Hell.
He is not in invincible ignorance and cannot give himself the baptism of desire.
According to the Catholic Magisterium (Cantate Dominio 1441, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) etc most people are on the way to Hell since they die without faith and baptism.
Jesus has said that the way to Hell is large and most people take it. So enter through the narrow gate. The Church is the narrow gate.Living the Gospel teachings as interpreted by the Catholic Church is the narrow gate.
Jesus has said that those who do not beleive will be condemned. Most people die as unbelievers.
Jesus mentioned the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation. Most people die without the baptism of water.
In Italy for instance, Jews. Muslims and other non Catholics do not have ‘faith and baptism’ (AG 7) and they know about the Catholic Church and yet do not enter (LG 14).So they are oriented to Hell according to the traditional magisterium of the Catholic Church. Similarly Protestansts, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses etc are also outside the Church .Magisterial documents indicate that they are all on the way to Hell.
________________________________________
Salvemur
What about the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation?
that’s a it dogdy dude, because Athanasius would not have conceded that the Holy Spirity procededed from the ‘Father and the Son’.
–
Nonetheless, such confession ‘from the Father’ or ‘from the Father and the Son’, had been around for a while and WAS NOt the ‘issue’ of ”schism’; like all protestantisms it was, ‘Peter is not a son of Peter but a son of every Bishop’. ‘-
–
Fast forward to the 20th cent where creepy, wretched lying false ‘simons’ clam that they represent God who has no Son, and God who had no Ransom, and God who has no Incarnated Word, and we have the false ‘popes’ post-Pius XII – a bit like the big bad wolf. Looks like grandma (if you are a bit thick, smells like grandma, if you are clueless) but, what the hell?
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/home.html
PSSS. ‘scuse my English. You might get the gist.
i have to reiterate that condemnation is, traditionally, pretty un-Catholic-in that the worth and, especially, last moments of a person’s life are not ours to contest (unlike most protestants). However, the idea that the ordained ‘Vicar of Christ’, could, against revealed Truths, lead, a generations to falsehoods would utterly comprimise the solidity of Christ’s Rock. Therefore, it would be spiritually wise to go, well, a fake, creep, anti-christ , is parading about as a shepherd. Luther was an anti-sheperd (Raztinger, Bergoglio endorse him); Karl Marx was a plain anit-christ (Roncalli and Montini bowed to him)……….
Lionel, rather than hear all your irrelevant discussion, obfuscation, etc. concerning BOD (like visible cases, etc.), show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD, other than Fr. Feeney. Of course, I’ll be waiting forever, since you will find none, but your answer will prove interesting and illuminating.
This website completely refutes Fr. Feeney and his followers: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
Dear Cyprian,
The Cardinal is just parroting what Father Bergoglio’s been saying for over 40 years in Argentina and nearly 2 years as Pope. It’s why his evangelical friends were dancing for joy at his election, -saying the Church is really going to change now. Didn’t you hear that Francis called for us to go spread the Gospel together, leaving the “differences” to the Theologians? That’s two different Gospels we’re supposed to go spread–together. (See his talks with the Ark Community for details) . No shock here. More prayer required. Much more.
Quo Vadis Petre:
Lionel, rather than hear all your irrelevant discussion, obfuscation, etc. concerning BOD (like visible cases, etc.), show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD,
Lionel:
I am affirming the baptism of desire. I am saying it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
I am also saying that it refers to a hypothetical case. It does not refer to someone personally known to us in 2014.
So for me these cases are invisible.
Invisible cases cannot be defacto, objective, seen- in- the- flesh- downtown exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith in 2014 for salvation.
So like Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes and Church Councils I affirm the dogma and do not claim that there are any known exceptions.
_______________________________________________________
show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD, other than Fr. Feeney.
Lionel:
I do not speak for the liberal theologians or for Fr.Leonard Feeney’s community in the USA. I speak for myself.
The Council of Trent has not said that the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) is visible to us in the present times or that it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I agree with the Council of Trent.
I repeat : I do not deny implicit for us baptism of desire. I reject explicit for us baptism of desire, which is an irrational concept that originated in 1949 and is known to me as Cushingism.
_____________________________________________
Lionel:
Why don’t you just agree with me and say it clearly 1) before 1949 you cannot cite any one saying the baptism of desire is visible to us or 2.
that the baptism of desire is an explict exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Why don’t you agree with me and say that you personally do not know any one in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ? This is common sense and not theology.
Whatever be your understanding of Feeneyism and what ever be the theology you have accepted, objectively you do not know any exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
_________________________________
other than Fr. Feeney. Of course, I’ll be waiting forever, since you will find none, but your answer will prove interesting and illuminating.
Lionel:
There are more links at this post.There are statements from priests and the apologist John Martigioni.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/archbishop-thomas-egullickson.html#links
QuoVadisPetre .
This website completely refutes Fr. Feeney and his followers: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
This website also assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma extar ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words the baptism of desire is a visible exception.
This is a common error among traditionalists, sedevacantists and also supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Even the communities of Fr.Leonared Feeeny assume that the baptism of desire , invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are visible for us. They make this error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.I have asked them many times to clarify this issue but they will not comment on it.
Here is a link to a discussion with Paul, who represents baptismofdesire.com.This is the link you have sent me. Perhaps Paul belongs to the sedevacantist community CMRI. Their link was recommended to me by a CMRI priest.
No Church Father, pope,saint or Doctor of the Church inferred that the baptism of desire was explicit for us,seen in the flesh
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/no-church-father-popesaint-or-doctor-of.html#links
Nope, Lionel, you are following your own Magisterium. If understood correctly, BOD isn’t an exception to EENS, since it follows Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc. Your answer to both my queries is indeed enlightening: you have said this nonsense, “No Church Father, pope,saint or Doctor of the Church inferred that the baptism of desire was explicit for us,seen in the flesh,” and yet you haven’t named any of them who denied BOD. NONE! This shows me you’re dishonest, IMO.
I’m through, Lionel. I’ve said my bit; there are others who have defended BOD far better than I have, like Fr. Laisney. But you choose to call St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc., heretics, for affirming BOD: a logical conclusion from your belief that BOD is heretical!!! I’ll say it again: you follow your own Magisterium!
I wouldn’t have been so up in arms, if you merely said BOD was wrong, but not heretical. But no, you condemn St. Charles Borromeo, St. Ambrose (for saying the assassinated emperor had BOD), Pope Innocent II, etc. Time will show you and others who believe like you to be just plain wrong!! I just couldn’t let you go without this admonition! This reminds me of the heresies of the past: “simplification” of a doctrine leads to denying it outright!
Here is the Athanasias Creed with my two emphasis on the necessity of the Catholic faith.
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Athanasian
Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Mr Andrdes, As I’ve said to you many times, and as many others have said to you – but you refuse to listen, and simply repeat yourself:
There is no exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Baptism, including baptism of desire (with its strict criteria) makes one a member of the One Holy Catholic Church. Baptism is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion to achieve salvation. We cannot know if a specific person achieved salvation, except in very limited number of cases (e.g. canonised persons). This applies to all, including those that we know have been baptised with water, and who apparently died in a state of grace (confessing all mortal sins, etc.). As for a specific person who was not baptised by water, but who was due to be soon baptised but died just before baptism could be effected – in such a case one could say that he was baptised by God, by desire, because he had intended to be baptised by water but was frustrated by death. However, as with a person known to have been baptised by water, we cannot know that this person has been saved, as we cannot know that all the necessary criteria regarding being in a state of grace has been satisfied.
As I’ve said, ad nauseam, we cannot know that any specific person has avoided damnation, except where the Church has found that same has been revealed by God, as in found to be a saint. A person who was baptised but incapable (objectively known) of personal sin, can also be said to be known to be saved, as it can be known that the criteria for salvation have been satisfied by that person. However, generally, we cannot know a specific person has been saved, though we may believe all the signs were such as to suggest all the necessary criteria for salvation were satisfied.
You insist on using the vague term, “visible”, but unless one is receiving visions of heaven (authenticated by the Church, as being from God), no one in heaven is “visible” to one.
as I was saying the ‘proceeds’ bit hadn’t been a huge issue until….then it was….why?
You people /Power hungry/ Catholics are really lost in ego based folly .
Priests are no holier than ANY other of God’s children , all except for Jesus Christ .
Should we bow down to you, even Child molesters because of your cloth?(LOL) NEVER!!
The fact that you Priests believe that you have ordained power is cultish and is blatant Blasphemy!
Every Priest is the worst of sinners, as all who have been born in the flesh are! (for God sees all sin the same)!
To think otherwise is to perpetuate a trick born of satan himself.
Pope Francis is perhaps the only Pope in the history that get’s it right !
God save you for your love of your dressed up selves and the perversion of his true scripture!
Where in God’s name does the Bible/ New testament/ give power to Priests?? Nowhere !
I can say no more… only Pray that you be forgiven for such obvious Blasphemy!
Dear Lord Jesus Christ please forgive those that would pervert your word and Strong arm spiritual searching people for their own power!