[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Because what you call the "Novus Ordo Church" is the Church that has Apostolic Succession and has the succcessor of Peter. That's an undisputable, historical fact.

No sir. They broke off just as all the other thousands of Catholic churches did. Thus they lose such privilege.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Amen, and it hasn't, and it won't. That doesn't mean Satan won't try. And he certainly gave quite a nice effort with this most recent attempt.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I don't see how one moment the Church can be the Church, and the next moment it isn't, just because a small group of people claim that a pope fell into heresy. What does that say about the integrity of Christ's promise that the Church would never fall?

What does it say? It says a lot. Christ's promise is absolutely true. Which is why it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that a fake-pope does not make his way in their and introduce heretical teaching to the faithful. If he were allowed to officially do this, then the Church would have, for all practical purposes, been prevailed against. It is for the very fact that the gates will not prevail, that Sedevacantists believe what we do. We believe that these men are not popes because if they were, then what would that say about Christ's promise? It would say that a man, who has no authority, could come in and officially preach heresy. That would be directly against Christ's promise.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I believe that if the Catholic Church in union with the bishop of rome isn't the true church, then Sedevacantism certainly isn't, either.

That's your own prerogative, with absolutely no basis in fact. It seems you only use an argument of emotion and in reality that holds no water.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

There's no pope there.

So? What's that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I believe that Peter was made the rock of the church, and my criteria for discerning which church is the true one is following the succession of Peter.

Good so do I. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Reedolo

If i'm wrong about seat of Peter, then why even bother being Roman Catholic at all?

Well you already have an erroneous view of infallibility. So why not just jump ship now? How about actually taking a breath and considering what infallibility really means, and has always meant?

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I could be an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, if I've been wrong about the pope all this time.

The only reason why I chose Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy in the first place was because of the Papacy. I almost became Orthodox, but the papacy was what finally convinced me that Rome was the way to go.

Again with the orthodox. What's with that?

Originally Posted by Reedolo

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that all of the popes up to HH+PB16 have been valid successors of Peter, so if the Church I belong to isn't the fullness of the Apostolic Church, then I must have been wrong about the role of the successor of Peter.

Well I can tell you right now that you were wrong about his role. If you believe that he can never be a heretic, then you already misunderstand his role. His role is to be sure no error ever is infallibly taught. It is totally possible for him to believe error himself (although then he automatically loses his office).

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I could still very much believe in the Catholic Church and be an Eastern Orthodox Catholic.

No because the Catholic Church teaches the infallibility of the Pope in regards to teaching on Faith and Morals. The Orthodox reject this, as well as a number of other Catholic doctrines. You could become Eastern Orthodox, but you would not believe in the Catholic Church if you did.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

It would make more sense to me to be Eastern Orthodox as opposed to Sedevacantist, because if the Roman Church was wrong about Papal Infallibility, then that would seem to indicate that the Roman CHurch was the one that was in schism in the first place and that the Eastern Orthodox Church was right.

Here's a thought: maybe YOU were wrong about Papal Infallibility... ever consider that? Or maybe you can't accept the possibility that you misunderstood the doctrine? The understanding of the doctrine has always been the same, and has always been intact. No pope has ever officially taught error. There can be popes who lose their office due to heresy, or fail to ever recieve the office because of heresy, but no pope ever taught error officially.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Sedevacantists still acknowledge the doctrine of papal infallibility, and yet simultaneously claim that the pope fell into heresy. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Well then clearly you don't understand the doctrine in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

It would make more sense to claim that Rome was wrong and Constantinople was right, and that the bishop of Rome was never anything more than the first among equals.

If that's what helps you sleep at night... All I can say is that I really wish you would at least try to understand the doctrine before jumping to the heretical orthodox. But, that's up to you.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

All I'd have to do is start doing the Sign of the Cross the other way and give up the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I'm not saying it would be easy.. but what would be the alternative?

Umm, how about simply re-adjusting your understanding of infallibility? How simple would that be? Don't assume that you know what it means and re-investigate the true meaning of the doctrine. Once you understand it, then decide whether you want to believe it. If you then choose not to believe it then by all means jump to whichever heretical church you wish.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

How can one believe in papal infallibility and at the same time claim that the pope fell?

Because, as I've said God only knows how many times, the two are in no way connected. Papal infallibility teaches that a valid pope cannot and will not ever teach heresy infallibly. It does NOT mean that the pope cannot become a heretic, and thus a non-catholic.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

If it can be proven that a pope fell into heresy, then the most logical conclusion would be that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is wrong, and make a move to Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, who have Apostolic Succession and never accepted that doctrine in the first place.

Well if you stick with your own erroneous understanding of the doctrine then this may make sense to some people (although I certainly wouldn't be one of them.) But you are claiming that Papal infallibility states that a pope can never become a heretic and that just quite simply is not what the doctrine teaches in the slightest bit. It teaches that a true pope will never teach heresy infallibly. That is all, nothing more nothing less.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

note: I know some Catholics don't like hte term "Roman Catholic", but in this case I don't know any other way of expressing what I'm trying to say, because there is dispute even to this day whether the "true" Catholic Church is the Roman Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, and both of them have valid Apostolic Succession, and thus valid Sacraments.

Wow... I think you have more to study than just sedevacantism. There has never ever been any dispute within the Church about whether or not the East was the true Church or not. Maybe there are such claims OUTSIDE the church, but who cares?

Originally Posted by milkmandog

what do you guys think of this group:
http://www.truecatholic.org/

Good intentions, not quite right theologically, and took their beliefs too far.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

And was this before or after the Great Schism of 1054? Just curious.

wow, I really don't think you are in a sound state of mind, theologically, to really continue this discussion. You need to work out whatever it is that attracts you to this heretical church and then come back once you've figured that out, or convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the two.

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I think succession is implied because more than once in the NT there is talk of an "office" being filled, and also it would make no sense to build the Church on Peter and then have no replacement for when Peter dies. If there is no replacement, then the "rock" of Christ's church would die along with Peter.

You need to pick a side and stick with it. You can't take it both ways, you can't say that there is papal succession, and then turn around and say the papacy doesn't exist because the popes can be heretics. Decide which you want to go with and then make an argument, please.

[milkmandog]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Conclavists.

More pseudo-Catholics who didn't like Vatican II so they thought they could start their own little "Catholic Church".

But if Vatican II didn't change anything why would they be unhappy?

[Iceman-bass14]

Originally Posted by milkmandog

But if Vatican II didn't change anything why would they be unhappy?

Your comment makes too much sense thats why.

You know all this talk is making me think about becoming a non denominational

[milkmandog]

Reed check out this article it explains the perceived changes of Vatican ii:
http://www.truecatholicfaith.org/nos...thechurch.html

[Iceman-bass14]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It says "on this rock", not "on this rock and it's successors".

Yes i agree.

[LefseRae]

Originally Posted by Iceman-bass14

Your comment makes too much sense thats why.

You know all this talk is making me think about becoming a non denominational

All this talk is why I AM non-denominational!

Arg. I don't know enough about Protestant theology, much less RCC/Orthodox/what-have-you theology to try to persuade you or I would.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

All this talk is why I AM non-denominational!

Arg. I don't know enough about Protestant theology, much less RCC/Orthodox/what-have-you theology to try to persuade you or I would.

FYI, if you are non-Denominational then you are a protestant.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

No, I think we can discuss it here. It relates to the thread, because if a pope once said ex-cathedra that all who aren't in submission to the pope will go to Hell, that will certainly indicate that Church changed post- Vatican II.

Bryan, I don't think her posts are contemptuous.

Ms. Renee, I think succession is implied because more than once in the NT there is talk of an "office" being filled, and also it would make no sense to build the Church on Peter and then have no replacement for when Peter dies. If there is no replacement, then the "rock" of Christ's church would die along with Peter.

Does the church need to have an "earthly" head to continue? I don't see that being the case. The church (all believers) have a head, Christ Jesus. God made some teachers, some apostles, some......, this has not changed. The teaching of the apostles went on and on and on through those they taught teaching others.

Since I"m lazy this morning, can you quote me the passages that speak of the office of apostle being filled? (other than the choosing of the one to replace Judas)

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Show me the original text again. I don't think it says "you must be in submission to the pope or you go to Hell".

And was this before or after the Great Schism of 1054? Just curious.

I have so many sites bookmarked it will take me a day or so to find these statements again. I'll post em when I find em, but I know I have posted them in multiple threads in the past.

[Bryan]

here are some old posts:

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Ok, I'll do some of the work for you.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in
it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

A few more:

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… remember that the followers of every heresy extract from inspired scripture the occasion of their error, and that all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their heads an inextinguishable flame.”

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal salvation on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862:
“There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791:
“Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Goldenchild, is "Most Holy Family Monastery" a site you would "trust"?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Yes Christ did promise that there would be false teachers. The promise of Christ that I am referring to, though, is this one:

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Christ built His Church on Peter, and through succession, Peter's successors, the popes. So it's like a promise that Christ has given the Church a firm, visible authority that will never be led astray.

just because there are differing interpretations of Scripture doesn't mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church. When the church fails in its mission to preach the name of Christ to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, then the gates of hail will have prevailed.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Show me the original text again. I don't think it says "you must be in submission to the pope or you go to Hell".

And was this before or after the Great Schism of 1054? Just curious.

Bull 'Unam Sanctam' Boniface VIII, 1302 ex cathedra

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

If one cannot be saved unless subject to the Roman Pontiff, then it follows that one is going to Hell.

[Iceman-bass14]

Originally Posted by Bryan

just because there are differing interpretations of Scripture doesn't mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church. When the church fails in its mission to preach the name of Christ to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, then the gates of hail will have prevailed.

My point exactly.Just cause there may not be a 'true' pope right now(which im not saying there isnt) wouldnt mean that the gates of hell have prevailed over the church.Cause God Himself said there were going to be trials (grieving wolves) trying to separate the church.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Goldenchild, is "Most Holy Family Monastery" a site you would "trust"?

no maam it's not. Well, they have some good information in regards to the very basics and in regards to pointing obvious heresies. But they hold to a number of non-Catholic positions themselves and are take Sedevacantism to an extreme level that is not needed. Not to mention that their knowledge of basic canon law and theology is not quite there yet. It is a site I visit every once in awhile when I'm looking for a basic quote that is taking me awhile to search for, or to catch up on some more recent heretical news from the Vatican. But it's not at all a site I would recommend to newbies in this area of study as they can lead one down a very dangerous path, as they almost did me.

One of their heretical positions is that of the Feeneyite position, meaning water baptism is the only form of baptism. This is probably more in line with your (mis)understanding of Outside the Church There is No Salvation. They don't believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, nor of Invincible Ignorance which the Church has infallibly spoken on all three. You might like them for this belief, but it doesn't fit in Catholic Theology and takes one down a dangerous road of exclusion. Meaning, it is also a schismatic act for a Catholic to deny communion with anybody else who is a true Catholic. MHFM isolates themselves from the vast majority of Traditional Catholics because we don't agree with their denial of these key Church doctrines.

There are much more orthodox sites one can get their information from. A favorite of mine, though most of the information comes from the discussions in the forums, is www.strobertbellarmine.net . John Lane, who runs that site is a leader in the Sedevacantist philosophy and is quite solid in his theology. www.cmri.org has a lot of information on their website as well. They are the Order of priests, brothers and sisters where I attend my masses. Among others those are my two basic favorites. www.wftsradio.com is a radio program site run by the SSPV another great order and they have really good programs to listen to all day. Listening to that for a few days will give one a good basic idea of the principles and basic heresies. Although for you guys you would not like to listen to the rosary constantly or a great number of their programs. www.traditionalmass.org is great with articles by Fr. Anthony Cekada whom I respect greatly, another leader in the Sedevacantism philosophy. http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/ is an amazing resource where one can listen to Catholic sermons on many topics, one of which being the issues with the Novus Ordo Church. http://www.christorchaos.com/ is another good resource although I find it a little hard to navigate for people who aren't really sure what they are looking for and are just browsing.