Denzinger #464 cites Lyons II (1272-1274): “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Vienne, (1311-1312) cited in Denzinger #482: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation”
Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Session 6)
Council of Trent, Session 5 (1546), #4: “If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Liguori, commenting on Trent:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)
Augustine’s own claims on the matter:
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).
“For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Epistle to Boniface; Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)
St. Ambrose: “No one is excepted: not the infant, nor the one prevented by any necessity’ (Abraham, Patrol. Lat. 14:500 ).
Council of Vienne, (1311-1312) cited in Denzinger #482: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation”
Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Session 6)
Council of Trent, Session 5 (1546), #4: “If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Liguori, commenting on Trent:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)
Augustine’s own claims on the matter:
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).
“For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Epistle to Boniface; Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)
St. Ambrose: “No one is excepted: not the infant, nor the one prevented by any necessity’ (Abraham, Patrol. Lat. 14:500 ).
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216):
Quote: “The Pope holds the place of the true God.”
Pope Boniface VIII (1302):
Quote: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius IX (1864):
Quote: “The Pope…is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
Quote: “The Pope holds the place of the true God.”
Pope Boniface VIII (1302):
Quote: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius IX (1864):
Quote: “The Pope…is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
This is the question Catholic apologists NEVER explain to me, so I welcome anyone to do so.
If you can remove a pope after having held firmly to him for 1600 years, what honestly prevents you from doing that next week? What prevents you from telling me next week that the seat had been empty this whole time, contrary to appearances?
And if you can withdraw a pope, you can withdraw a council, you can withdraw anything. Absolutely anything.
And in fact, you did. You withdrew Pope Felix II's badass council condemning Constantius's Arianism.
If you can remove a pope after having held firmly to him for 1600 years, what honestly prevents you from doing that next week? What prevents you from telling me next week that the seat had been empty this whole time, contrary to appearances?
And if you can withdraw a pope, you can withdraw a council, you can withdraw anything. Absolutely anything.
And in fact, you did. You withdrew Pope Felix II's badass council condemning Constantius's Arianism.
If you have to exist in exile from the Church to be a member of the Church, you are part of a self-refuting religion.
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
If you have to exist in exile from the Church to be a member of the Church, you are part of a self-refuting religion.
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
As a Roman Catholic you have to believe:
1. Constantinople I was wrong to appoint Flavian against the Pope’s wishes.
2. Chalcedon was wrong about Canon 28.
3. Constantinople II was wrong to assert their authority over Pope Vigilius.
4. Constantinople III was wrong to apply Matt 16 to Constantine’s empire.
5. Nicaea II was wrong about its definition about what makes a council Ecumenical. And about icons of the Father. And statues.
All of these are ECUMENICAL Councils btw. At some point you’re just admittedly NOT the church of the First Millennium.
1. Constantinople I was wrong to appoint Flavian against the Pope’s wishes.
2. Chalcedon was wrong about Canon 28.
3. Constantinople II was wrong to assert their authority over Pope Vigilius.
4. Constantinople III was wrong to apply Matt 16 to Constantine’s empire.
5. Nicaea II was wrong about its definition about what makes a council Ecumenical. And about icons of the Father. And statues.
All of these are ECUMENICAL Councils btw. At some point you’re just admittedly NOT the church of the First Millennium.
"We do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."
—Pope St Pius X
—Pope St Pius X
Vatican 2 is dogmatic - 5 documents proving it:
1. vatican.va/content/france…
2. vatican2voice.org/91docs/opening…
3. vatican.va/content/paul-v…
4. Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii #104 (RCs are bound to more than merely what is "extraordinary magisterium") : vatican.va/content/pius-x…
5. Si Diligis of Pius XII Obedience is necessary even if you think the pope is wrong: papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sidi…
1. vatican.va/content/france…
2. vatican2voice.org/91docs/opening…
3. vatican.va/content/paul-v…
4. Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii #104 (RCs are bound to more than merely what is "extraordinary magisterium") : vatican.va/content/pius-x…
5. Si Diligis of Pius XII Obedience is necessary even if you think the pope is wrong: papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sidi…
St. John Maximovitch said, “The psalms and the hymns that simply gratify the ear but do not inspire somebody to pray are not acceptable.”
Criticizing Priests
There once lived a most devout Priest. Even though he barely knew how to read and write, he was a Priest, a clergyman of strong faith, great virtue and of many spiritual struggles. He used to stand upright for hours during the Proskomedia, despite the fact that the veins of his feet had been affected and were bulging....standing upright commemorating the names of numerous people. He was a man of sacrifice to his last breath.
As he barely knew how to read and write, by some misunderstanding, he did not place the portions on the Holy Diskos properly.
When we place the portion of the All-Holy Theotokos on top of the Holy Diskos, we say: “The Queen stood at thy right hand…”
The Pries was under the impression that, since he said ”at thy right hand,” the portion of the All-Holy Mother of God must be placed on the right side of the Lamb (as he was looking at the Holy Diskos). In other words, he was placing the portions backwards.
One day, a Bishop visited the Holy Monastery for the Ordination of a Deacon. During the Psalms of Praise, when the Bishop enters the Holy Altar, he vests, then later goes to the Proskomedia, which has already been prepared up to a certain point. From then on he alone is the one to continue commemorating. Thus, the Bishop noticed that the portions had been placed backwards by the priest:
“You did not place the pieces properly, father,” he told him. “Father, come here for a minute. The All Holy Theotokos is placed over here and the Orders are placed over there. Hasn’t anyone told you; hasn’t anyone seen how you do the Proskomedia?”
“Certainly, Your Eminence,” replied the Priest. “Everyday, when I celebrate (for a day did not go by unless he celebrated the Divine Liturgy), the Angel who serves me sees what I am doing but does not tell me anything at all. I apologize, illiterate as I am, for making such a mistake; I will be careful from now on.”
“Who did you say? Who did you say serves you here?” asked the Bishop, “Isn’t he a monk who serves you?”
“No,” answered the Priest, “an Angel of the Lord.”
The Bishop fell silent, what could he have said, anyway? He was astonished and had certainly realized that a holy priest was standing before him.
At noon, following the meal in the trapeza, the Bishop said goodbye to the Abbot as well as the rest of the monks, and departed. The following day, as it was still night, when the Geronda Priest went to the Holy Altar in order to hold the Proskomedia.
The Angel of the Lord came down. During the act of breaking the Lamb, the Angel noticed that the Priest had placed the portions properly.
“Fine father!” he told the Priest. “Now you have placed them properly!”
“Yes, you knew the mistake I have been making for so many years!”
“And why didn’t you tell me anything; why didn’t you correct me?,” he asked.
“I could see it, but I do not have the right to tell you anything. I am not worthy to correct a Priest.”
~by Papa Stephanos Anagnostopoulos. This incident was narrated to the author by the blessed departed Geronda Gabriel, who for a great period of time was the abbott at the Holy Monastery of Dionysios on Mount Athos.~
There once lived a most devout Priest. Even though he barely knew how to read and write, he was a Priest, a clergyman of strong faith, great virtue and of many spiritual struggles. He used to stand upright for hours during the Proskomedia, despite the fact that the veins of his feet had been affected and were bulging....standing upright commemorating the names of numerous people. He was a man of sacrifice to his last breath.
As he barely knew how to read and write, by some misunderstanding, he did not place the portions on the Holy Diskos properly.
When we place the portion of the All-Holy Theotokos on top of the Holy Diskos, we say: “The Queen stood at thy right hand…”
The Pries was under the impression that, since he said ”at thy right hand,” the portion of the All-Holy Mother of God must be placed on the right side of the Lamb (as he was looking at the Holy Diskos). In other words, he was placing the portions backwards.
One day, a Bishop visited the Holy Monastery for the Ordination of a Deacon. During the Psalms of Praise, when the Bishop enters the Holy Altar, he vests, then later goes to the Proskomedia, which has already been prepared up to a certain point. From then on he alone is the one to continue commemorating. Thus, the Bishop noticed that the portions had been placed backwards by the priest:
“You did not place the pieces properly, father,” he told him. “Father, come here for a minute. The All Holy Theotokos is placed over here and the Orders are placed over there. Hasn’t anyone told you; hasn’t anyone seen how you do the Proskomedia?”
“Certainly, Your Eminence,” replied the Priest. “Everyday, when I celebrate (for a day did not go by unless he celebrated the Divine Liturgy), the Angel who serves me sees what I am doing but does not tell me anything at all. I apologize, illiterate as I am, for making such a mistake; I will be careful from now on.”
“Who did you say? Who did you say serves you here?” asked the Bishop, “Isn’t he a monk who serves you?”
“No,” answered the Priest, “an Angel of the Lord.”
The Bishop fell silent, what could he have said, anyway? He was astonished and had certainly realized that a holy priest was standing before him.
At noon, following the meal in the trapeza, the Bishop said goodbye to the Abbot as well as the rest of the monks, and departed. The following day, as it was still night, when the Geronda Priest went to the Holy Altar in order to hold the Proskomedia.
The Angel of the Lord came down. During the act of breaking the Lamb, the Angel noticed that the Priest had placed the portions properly.
“Fine father!” he told the Priest. “Now you have placed them properly!”
“Yes, you knew the mistake I have been making for so many years!”
“And why didn’t you tell me anything; why didn’t you correct me?,” he asked.
“I could see it, but I do not have the right to tell you anything. I am not worthy to correct a Priest.”
~by Papa Stephanos Anagnostopoulos. This incident was narrated to the author by the blessed departed Geronda Gabriel, who for a great period of time was the abbott at the Holy Monastery of Dionysios on Mount Athos.~
Roman Catholic
Vatican 2 quotes from Popes
Whatever were our opinions about the Council's (Vatican 2) various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reserve.
Pope John Paul II
Whatever were our opinions about the Council's various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reservation.The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Paul VI, from an address to the Roman Curia, 23 April 1966, demonstrates the high import which he assigned to the Council. Quoted in 'A Concise Guide to the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Vol. One, Adrian Hastings. DLT 1968.
Vatican II ... is a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.
Pope John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte, n.57 2001, CTS
But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Paul VI in a address to the Curia, Rome, 23 April 1966
Vatican 2 quotes from Popes
Whatever were our opinions about the Council's (Vatican 2) various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reserve.
Pope John Paul II
Whatever were our opinions about the Council's various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reservation.The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Paul VI, from an address to the Roman Curia, 23 April 1966, demonstrates the high import which he assigned to the Council. Quoted in 'A Concise Guide to the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Vol. One, Adrian Hastings. DLT 1968.
Vatican II ... is a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.
Pope John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte, n.57 2001, CTS
But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Paul VI in a address to the Curia, Rome, 23 April 1966
Luke 4:4-8
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
4 And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5 And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time;
6 And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them.
7 If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answering said to him: It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Bull of 1302 of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
“We are told by the word of the Gospel that in this His fold there are two swords—a spiritual, namely, and a temporal. For when the apostles said, “Behold here are two swords”—the Lord did not reply that this was too much, but enough. Surely he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter wrongly interprets the word of the Lord when He says, “Put up thy sword in its scabbard.” Both swords, the spiritual and the material, therefore, are in the power of the Church; the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and knights, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword, moreover, ought to be under the other, and the temporal authority to be subjected to the spiritual. For when the Apostle says “There is no power but of God, and the powers that are of God are ordained,” they would not be ordained unless sword were under sword and the lesser one, as it were, were led by the other to great deeds.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
4 And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5 And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time;
6 And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them.
7 If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answering said to him: It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Bull of 1302 of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
“We are told by the word of the Gospel that in this His fold there are two swords—a spiritual, namely, and a temporal. For when the apostles said, “Behold here are two swords”—the Lord did not reply that this was too much, but enough. Surely he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter wrongly interprets the word of the Lord when He says, “Put up thy sword in its scabbard.” Both swords, the spiritual and the material, therefore, are in the power of the Church; the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and knights, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword, moreover, ought to be under the other, and the temporal authority to be subjected to the spiritual. For when the Apostle says “There is no power but of God, and the powers that are of God are ordained,” they would not be ordained unless sword were under sword and the lesser one, as it were, were led by the other to great deeds.
“892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”
Ordinary Magesterium
Ordinary Magesterium
Bull of 1302 of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Luke 4
5 And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time;
6 And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them.
Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Luke 4
5 And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time;
6 And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them.