"Plausible" analysis? How about "subjective" analysis? A "personal" analysis. We're talking about your personal assessment of the situation aren't we?
Not subjective. An objective few of the facts. the analysis of millions of thinking people including Paul VI in his lucid moments is objective. A subjective view is the Pope's "Springtime of Vatican II" that we're supposedly in.
We're talking about your personal subjective denial of the situation. Hiding behind a doctrine of papal impeccability that doesn't exist will not do anything but endanger souls.
The doctrinal promise is Our Lord's to St. Peter and his successors.
That's the essential part of the discussion, the reality of the auto-destruction of the Church's organizational structure is in no way a denial of Our Lord's promises. The neo-Catholics have simply exaggerated Our Lord's promises beyond all reason in order to make themselves feel comfortable.
The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.
Indeed it does have a bearing. If there is no limit to the extent to which Popes can err and the extent to which they can lead the Church astray, then the promise of Jesus to Peter is empty.
But it seems you want to be the one to determine where those limits are according to your comfort level. The promise of Jesus guarantees that the Church won't be destroyed, if it's reduced to an amazingly small amount of people, the promise still holds. The Pope is bound by the doctrine of the Church, not the other way around. He can invoke the magisterium of the Church but he is also subject to it.
As is the promise that He would not leave us orphans and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail.
He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail, he made no promise about the gates of the Church. He hasn't left us orphaned but he has given us a few deadbeat dads.
"They can have a disequiibrium of mind"? If I understand your premise correctly there has been a collective and continual disequilibrium of papal minds for the past half century. Your mind of course, is crystal clear and unshakeable. The popes have all been crazy but you have it all figured out.
Yes. Along with millions of others.
Gerard: You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.
No. I stipulated that certain popes had been rebuked in certain situations. Infrequently. I never said that this era was exempt and it's entirely possible that someone like Cardinal Ratzinger has, in private, told the Pope that he believes he should consider a particular course of action rather than another. I would consider that to be a "rebuke" of the style St. Paul used with St. Peter.
Oh, so a rebuke of the Pope is according to your own rules and comfort level and reality must fit in to it. I understand. Only Card. Ratzinger can meekly tell the Pope he thinks something else might be a better course of action. Again, reality is conforming itself merely to your own personal comfort level.
The total rejection of successive popes and their work and teaching rises above the level of a "rebuke" as does the unauthorized consecration of bishops without papal approval. That is rebellion.
You're exaggerating to avoid the point. There hasn't been a total rejection of the Popes and their work. Just a rejection of their novel (and stupid) ideas and their objective efforts to destroy tradition in the Church by their actions and inactions. A Pope who kisses the Koran spits in the face of the Magisterium he has sworn to defend. THAT is rebellion. A Pope who foists a mishmash, senseless, inferior, non-Apostolic rite of Mass on the faithful is basically giving the finger to the Saints, the Angels, the Papacy, the Blessed Mother and the faithful and thinks Our Lord will like it. THAT is rebellion and Stupidity.
Gerard: The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.
What and where is the Church? It is built on the Rock, Peter and those in union with him. Sever that union, as when excommunication is incurred and you are outside the Church.
When Peter lies about excommunications, no severing occurs. Because when he speaks like that he denies Our Lord 3 times all over again.
Gerard: Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.
You're right. It is silly. But not impossible. Which is precisely why I used it.
I suspect that you really mean you used it because you do think it's impossible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be true. We had enough body doubles of Saddam Hussein running around the middle east over the years. Obviously the idea in principal has some merit. As an example, just watching the events of Sept 11 2001 you can see the hysterical people who were living in a bubble thinking and yelling "this can't be happening" My reaction besides the tragic consequences for souls and the world was "here we go." Malachi Martin predicted the event in 1993 right after the first attempt. He said, "this is merely a foretaste of what is coming."
Your whole argument is based on the premise that because there is nothing which makes it impossible (at least in your opinion) for popes to lead the Church completely astray then it must be happening. My point was that "possibility" opens the door to all sorts of ridiculous scenarios such as the one I cited. It doesn't however, make them real. And when your eternal salvation is at stake it is folly to go down this road.
Not at all. The Popes haven't lead the Church completely astray. They have lead the majority of the Church Militant astray and allowed Apostasy to spread like wildfire. This is because the promise of Christ holds DESPITE their misguided or malicious efforts.
Your salvation is at stake by following the mistakes of these Popes which lead to Indifferentism and a total loss of Catholic faith. That is folly. God has already placed us in a ridiculous scenario that is real, because of the faithlessness and foolishness of 3 (only 3) Popes and their malfeasance in high office.
No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.
What is happening in plain sight?
Blindness.
Gerard: The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret.
Really? Perhaps you'd care to show me where this is laid out in the Catechism. Is this Catholic doctrine?
Yes. We have the Holy Ghost himself speaking through the Prophet Isaiah telling us: Come ye near unto Me, and hear this: I HAVE NOT SPOKEN IN SECRET, from the beginning; from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit. --According to St. Jerome, Isaiah is speaking on behalf of the Trinity in this passage. Because the opposite would be Gnosticism. Jesus spoke plainly and publicly, his Church and what proceeds from him do the same.
Gerard: I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation.
You don't need the Pope, in other words.
In other words, I need the papacy, not a bad individual Pope and I don't need the Pope's mistakes.
Most protestants say the same.
No they don't. They don't believe in the papal primacy or infallibility and they believe Catholics think the Pope is impeccable in their error.
Glad that protestantism is working out for you.
Wrong again. Typical neo-Catholic attempt at guilt by association, but it provides a good teaching moment. Protestants have been accusing Catholics of papal worship and mistaking papal infallibility for impeccability. The neo-Catholics have been making that lie appear true for decades now. I feel particularly sorry for the EWTN/Journey Home type of converts that never changed from the Protestant view of the papacy. They simply decided to like it.
Gerard:It has all been revealed publicly.
Revelation you mean? Yes it has. But it's preservation and explanation has been entrusted to the successors of Peter and those united to him.
What guarantees that he won't be a screw up? Better yet, what proves that he hasn't already blundered numerous times? Just because its been entrusted to him doesn't mean he'll do the job well. JPII's been ignoring it for his whole Pontificate and sliced away most defenses and guards the whole time.
Not you.
Wrong. My Baptismal promises and the slap on my cheek from Confirmation tell me I'm a soldier for Christ. Revelation has told all of us, publicly that rebuking a Pope is permissable and sometimes necessary.
Gerard: The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for.
I'll agree that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a cell phone, but are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't work through the Pope and more importantly, can't?
Do you agree that ecumenism is not an article of faith?
I'm saying there is no reason to believe that JPII and Paul VI were did or are doing what the Holy Spirit WANTS, they simply are given enormous leeway in destroying parts of it. And they will make an accounting (Paul VI has of course)
How do you know what takes place between God and the Pope? You're way out in deep waters here, my friend.
The waters may be deep but Our Lord is with the Barque of Peter and even when Peter doubts and stumbles and sinks beneath the waves because he has taken his eyes of Our Lord and been frightened by the storms in the world, I know that he'll rescue the boat and Peter eventually. I just don't invent doctrine where there is none. And I don't presume upon the Holy Ghost to make me comfortable in following him. And I don't presume that if the Pope does something foolish that it really must be good and be of the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is telling the Pope to kiss the Koran because Islam is a lovely religion by which people are save. There is no Holy Ghost.
Gerard: Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.
Like, I said, "good luck".
Do you have a problem with someone praying to St. Pius X or St. Pius V or any other sainted pontiff to intercede and pray for the current Pope?
You're giving me your opinion on why you think we are free to ignore the Pope when we choose. That's all. That's as subjective as it gets.
"Millions of thinking people"? Hyperbole.
We're talking about your personal subjective denial of the situation. Hiding behind a doctrine of papal impeccability that doesn't exist will not do anything but endanger souls.
No. The only thing I'm denying is your hypothesis that we all have the freedom to "rebuke" the Pope as and when it pleases us and to become an autonomous interpreter of what constitutes Catholicism. Further, I deny that a "rebuke" allows us to take things to whatever lengths we please. Including consecrating our own bishops.
That's the essential part of the discussion, the reality of the auto-destruction of the Church's organizational structure is in no way a denial of Our Lord's promises. The neo-Catholics have simply exaggerated Our Lord's promises beyond all reason in order to make themselves feel comfortable.
I'd say the opposite. I'd say you interpret them in a way that allows you to go to whatever lengths you deem necessary to ignore the one whom Jesus appointed to lead his Church.
I further say that in addition to the concrete promises which Jesus made to Peter, Peter also has a charism enabling him to lead the Church-something which is not given to me nor to you. It is not part of my job description to grade the Pope's report card. Humility prohibits it. I have no religious vocation, still less a charism which enables me to discern when it's time to wave my middle finger at him.
But it seems you want to be the one to determine where those limits are according to your comfort level. The promise of Jesus guarantees that the Church won't be destroyed, if it's reduced to an amazingly small amount of people, the promise still holds. The Pope is bound by the doctrine of the Church, not the other way around. He can invoke the magisterium of the Church but he is also subject to it.
Comfort level has nothing to do with it. I do however, say that there are "limits" to what the term "rebuke" means with regard to the obedience and respect which we are obliged to give to the successor of Peter. Ironically, it seems that you think there are no limits to the disobedience one can show when one deems it time for a "rebuke." Including consecrating one's own bishops.
The example you originally cited of St. Paul taking issue with St. Peter, in no way allows one to define a "rebuke" as "going to whatever lengths one considers necessary."
Me:Your mind of course, is crystal clear and unshakeable. The popes have all been crazy but you have it all figured out.
You: Yes. Along with millions of others.
Thanks for admitting it openly.
These are not the words of a reasonable, well-balanced individual.
Oh, so a rebuke of the Pope is according to your own rules and comfort level and reality must fit in to it. I understand. Only Card. Ratzinger can meekly tell the Pope he thinks something else might be a better course of action. Again, reality is conforming itself merely to your own personal comfort level.
See above.
You are the one who wants to make the rules and thumb your nose when it suits. I'm preaching obedience and respect.
You're exaggerating to avoid the point. There hasn't been a total rejection of the Popes and their work. Just a rejection of their novel (and stupid) ideas and their objective efforts to destroy tradition in the Church by their actions and inactions. A Pope who kisses the Koran spits in the face of the Magisterium he has sworn to defend. THAT is rebellion. A Pope who foists a mishmash, senseless, inferior, non-Apostolic rite of Mass on the faithful is basically giving the finger to the Saints, the Angels, the Papacy, the Blessed Mother and the faithful and thinks Our Lord will like it. THAT is rebellion and Stupidity.
No. This is rebelllion. There is a point at which a "rebuke" is no longer such and becomes rebellion. Excommunication is usually a reasonably good line in the sand.
When Peter lies about excommunications, no severing occurs. Because when he speaks like that he denies Our Lord 3 times all over again.
At best, uncharitable. At worst, outright lies by you.
I suspect that you really mean you used it because you do think it's impossible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be true. We had enough body doubles of Saddam Hussein running around the middle east over the years. Obviously the idea in principal has some merit. As an example, just watching the events of Sept 11 2001 you can see the hysterical people who were living in a bubble thinking and yelling "this can't be happening" My reaction besides the tragic consequences for souls and the world was "here we go." Malachi Martin predicted the event in 1993 right after the first attempt. He said, "this is merely a foretaste of what is coming."
My emphasis. More silliness.
Not at all. The Popes haven't lead the Church completely astray. They have lead the majority of the Church Militant astray and allowed Apostasy to spread like wildfire. This is because the promise of Christ holds DESPITE their misguided or malicious efforts.
On the contrary. The confusion within the Church has come about in spite of the Pope. It's been the work of those who have willfully ignored his teaching.
Yes. We have the Holy Ghost himself speaking through the Prophet Isaiah telling us: Come ye near unto Me, and hear this: I HAVE NOT SPOKEN IN SECRET, from the beginning; from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit. --According to St. Jerome, Isaiah is speaking on behalf of the Trinity in this passage. Because the opposite would be Gnosticism. Jesus spoke plainly and publicly, his Church and what proceeds from him do the same.
You said the Holy Spirit never speaks privately. I never said that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak publicly. He does. He also speaks privately to those whom he chooses, as and when He chooses. You may not be privy to the conversation.
In other words, I need the papacy, not a bad individual Pope and I don't need the Pope's mistakes.
Oh, OK. So you need a pope but not this pope, right? If this pope is unnecessary perhaps we could abolish the papacy then? Seeing as how previous popes are sufficient for you and have done it all. Maybe that's going a bit far. Maybe we could just suspend the papacy until one comes along who is more suited to your tastes. How's that?
No they don't. They don't believe in the papal primacy or infallibility and they believe Catholics think the Pope is impeccable in their error.
Protestants say this: "I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation." Exactly what you said.
What guarantees that he won't be a screw up? Better yet, what proves that he hasn't already blundered numerous times? Just because its been entrusted to him doesn't mean he'll do the job well. JPII's been ignoring it for his whole Pontificate and sliced away most defenses and guards the whole time.
He's the Pope. If this answer isn't sufficient for you then maybe you need to think a little about why we even need a pope.
If there are no guarantees that he won't be a screw up and we are free to "rebuke" him whenever we, consider that he is screwing up, we've pretty much reached the point where a pope is just a nuisance. Let's drop the pretense and appoint ourselves pope.
At least we know that we won't screw up, right?
Wrong. My Baptismal promises and the slap on my cheek from Confirmation tell me I'm a soldier for Christ. Revelation has told all of us, publicly that rebuking a Pope is permissable and sometimes necessary.
But that wasn't what you said before. You said that you had access to all the revelation necessary for salvation because it was "public". My point was that the interpretation of revelation is the work of the Church. Not you.
Do you agree that ecumenism is not an article of faith?
OK. Now for the nitty gritty.
Ecumenism is a process. A mechanism. It can't be an article of faith.
Here is the faith. Jesus founded one church. Not a thousand. The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. He also prayed that all may be one. Ecumenism is the process by which we attempt to bring about that unity for which God prayed.
In your posts overall, there is an absence of understanding that the Church is a living Church. Truth is immortal and unchanging but the Holy Spirit constantly inspires the Church to present that truth to men in many ways in many different ages.
The Pope is certainly one of the main conduits by which the Holy Spirit moves in the Church and with all due respect, you're probably not in the loop, so to speak, with respect to how the Spirit wishes to heal the many divisions in Christianity. I certainly don't consider that I am. Unless of course the white courtesy phone rings and I'm summoned to Rome for my input. Otherwise, I'll simply continue to pray and ask God to help me to be a loyal son of the Church.
You may not like the the Pope's overtures to those of other faiths, but I'd humbly submit, on the basis of this and other posts which you've made, that you are incompetent to judge.
Over and out.