The even bigger issue than papal supremacy is this: The Virgin Mary is ‘blessed among women’… true. I honor her. She is NOT however the Arc of the New Covenant. JESUS is. When Mary Magdalene came to the tomb she saw an angel at the foot and an angel at the head where the Christ’s body had been lain. That space represents the MERCY seat, where the Spirit of God rested. The Arc is a picture of the Throne Room of God. The ‘types and shadow’ examples the Roman Catholic Church point to for their Marian dogmas do not actually point to the things they say it does… often they are quite the opposite when studied carefully in context. This is where types and shadows run amok and twist the honor and glory due to Christ… to Mary. The title ‘Queen of Heaven’ was an abomination to God. The Israelites had fallen into the Baal and Asherah worship. Learn scripture, not the tradition of men that lead to idolatry. ALL OF SCRIPTURE points back to Christ.
Dear Dr. Jules Gomes, If this is the case - and I think you're right, this is the case - should we be surprised? Or outraged? Or...? I remember a short story by Chesterton (I no longer recall which of his millions of texts it was) that went like this. A priest was thundering and lightning from the pulpit about what would happen if people didn't take heed. "You will see what will happen... etc." Chesterton comments: "The good father was right in everything, except for one thing: the use of the future tense. For what was supposed to happen was already happening, right before the priest's eyes, for years." I apologize, your article is excellent, but there's nothing new here, everything has already happened. There is no time bomb, Dr. Gomes. It has already shattered (almost) everything, except for a remnant.
I’m not sure that this article solves the ecumenical issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome or merely democratizes it and this opens a latitudinarian position for all doctrine. The loss of the sic et non format of the Joint Declaration on Justification seems to reduce the cognitive content of doctrine. Thank you for your reflections.
What happened was smaller independent churches got consumed by the larger city (cosmopolitan) churches which had a single bishop. Also, if you didn’t agree you were run out as a heretic. There were multiple strains of Christian tradition in the first four centuries-Gnostics, Valentinans, Arians, etc. Constantine (after a bloody Christian riot) put his foot down and set up the Council of Nicea. Problem is it wasn’t a majority of bishops/elders present.
So just to be clear, you do not agree that the outright damnation of non-Catholics from the documents of Vatican I needs to be understood in its cultural context? You don’t think it was necessary for the Church to nuance the statement that anyone who dies as a Jew, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox are “a stranger to the hope of life and salvation” (MA 11)?
I’m not trying to start an argument, it just seems to me from my studies of pre and post-conciliar documents that there are some things you are misunderstanding or taking out-of-context. I’d challenge you to research implicit baptism of desire from the Summa Theologiae.
Do you think Church documents that supported slavery never needed nuance to be understood in their historical context? What about women being barred from participating in a schola?
Nuance is not a change in doctrine, it’s a change in emphasis.
I’ve met some very holy Protestants in my life. One example being a close friend of mine who began “Rainbow Revival” - a ministry which provides community for those who have rejected an LGBTQ+ lifestyle for the sake of the gospel. About a year ago I attended one of their events and the testimonies of the power and love of God cut me to the heart. Preconciliar documents would have actually prevented me from attending such events.
I hope one day you have the privilege of meeting people like them. God Bless.
Baptism of desire, as defined by the Church (see the Council of Trent) means a desire to be baptized as a Catholic. It only applies to catachumens and those contemplating conversion.
The Church doesn't teach in nuance, She teaches with clarity and conciseness (see Pius X, and Pius VI).
St. Paul is clear: if we have faith that can move mountains, but have not charity, we have nothing. The Church tells us that communion with legitimate authority is charity. If we have not communion with legitimate authority, we don't have charity, and have nothing. Our Lord condemns the lack of faith. Pope Leo XIII said that rejection of just ONE element of Divine and Catholic Faith is equal to apostasy.
There is, therefore, no salvation outside the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Visible membership with Her is the only surety we can have. Outside that, it is just a crapshoot.
I am repeating, or paraphrasing, what the Church has always said. The sin of heresy is a sin against Faith. A heretic is one who has no faith, and thus cannot be saved. Schism is a sin against charity. A schismatic is one who has no charity, and thus cannot be saved. The idea that somehow those with no faith or no charity can be saved is ludicrous.
Actually, you're not. You are omitting the very important document that Cardinal Ratzinger issued under Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus. In it he agrees that all salvation is mediated through the Church (without limiting the definition of Church to those in communion with Rome, as Catholics consider the Orthodox Churches true Churches), but acknowledges that visible membership is not a strict necessity.
But that is counter what Holy Church has already defined. There is only one Church through which salvation is mediated: the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ratzinger and V2 are teaching a novelty that had already been condemned. At V2, the architects of Lumen Gentium were asked by 3 astitute Benedictines to say "is" as opposed to "subsists in", to reflect the established doctrine taught by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. They refused, because they wanted a more "inclusive" idea of the Church (which Mystici Corporis condemns). The Vatican Council of 1870 defined that doctrine cannot ever "evolve" into something different than what it was originally understood. Pope Eugene IV, the Council of Florence, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Pius XII all understood that salvation is only through the Catholic Church. The Church cannot, then, teach anything different.
Admittedly, this is where the concepts of "infallibility" (which is I believe more accurately expressed as "irreformabity") and "development of doctrine" become hard to apply in practice. If what was expressed by the Second Vatican Council about "outside the Church, no salvation" as later explained in Dominus Iesus is correct, then it does indeed seem hard to reconcile with prior teaching. Catholics these days find ourselves in the position of having to figure out which parts of which documents are considered irreformable--which rather defeats the point of the charism of infallibility. Honestly, my head has been hurting because of this for the past few years. I was deeply formed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and their interpretation of Vatican II, so I cannot bring myself to share your perspective.
St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters are a witness to the Episcope during the earliest period of Church history - that does not justify the Pope, but there were certainly Bishops who oversaw their congregations and they did in fact exercise Church authority.
Ignatius does not address his letter to the Romans to the bishop of Rome. Also, in his letter to the Romans, he makes no mention of a bishop. I am specifically referencing historical research on the development of the papacy (and episcopacy) in Rome.
There are major textual problems with the corpus Ignatian letters and significant interpolations as well as forgeries. Of the 17 letters attributed to him, only seven are regarded as authentic. But even within these seven letters there is a short recension, long recension and a middle recension (with significant textual differences). One of the world's top Catholic patristic scholars publishing through the world's top Catholic pontifical institute dismisses three Ignatian letters (of the seven) as inauthentic. Moreover, the mention of the episcopos is regarded as a later interpolation and an anachronism.
That he does not implore his brothers to do, "Nothing with the Bishop" specifically to Rome still attests to the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Also that some of his letters might have been spurious does not actually validate what you say about all of them, specifically those dealing with the role of the Bishop in the Church.
It is no longer the consensus view that his letters are forgeries and of those that take that view, they are in the definite minority. What you say about the Episcope is also not the consensus of the scholars and is not an anachronism as it is literally in the Bible.
Jesus also uses Disciple and Apostle interchangeably but they are not the same thing, though all Apostles were necessarily Disciples of Christ, not all Disciples were Apostles. Paul also called himself a Deacon but clearly held a much higher office.
This article misunderstands what the Church is. Dogmatic professions cannot be unuttered. If the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is wrong, the faith is a lie that collapses in on itself. Those who hate Catholicism may wish for the day, but anyone with the faith of the fathers holds strong against such an assault on Christ's Church (which has been promised protection anyway).
The Ignatian letters are only one piece of the puzzle. Irenaeaus of Lyons, writing in ca. 150, uses the continued episcopacy of Rome as evidence against Gnosticism, arguing that the bishops of Rome, all of whom can be traced back to Peter, taught publicly. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, are generally considered the first three bishops of Rome (with some variation on Cletus).
Historical studies of ancient liturgical rites show that, until perhaps the 2nd century, the bishop was always the one who offered the Divine Liturgy, and it wasn't until the 2nd Century that presbyters began to offer the liturgy without the bishop, as the number of Christians grew. There is a reason why traditional Orthodox and Catholic theology on holy Orders has the orders completed at priest: the bishop is absolute fullness of the priesthood, not something else entirely.
The even bigger issue than papal supremacy is this: The Virgin Mary is ‘blessed among women’… true. I honor her. She is NOT however the Arc of the New Covenant. JESUS is. When Mary Magdalene came to the tomb she saw an angel at the foot and an angel at the head where the Christ’s body had been lain. That space represents the MERCY seat, where the Spirit of God rested. The Arc is a picture of the Throne Room of God. The ‘types and shadow’ examples the Roman Catholic Church point to for their Marian dogmas do not actually point to the things they say it does… often they are quite the opposite when studied carefully in context. This is where types and shadows run amok and twist the honor and glory due to Christ… to Mary. The title ‘Queen of Heaven’ was an abomination to God. The Israelites had fallen into the Baal and Asherah worship. Learn scripture, not the tradition of men that lead to idolatry. ALL OF SCRIPTURE points back to Christ.
Dear Dr. Jules Gomes, If this is the case - and I think you're right, this is the case - should we be surprised? Or outraged? Or...? I remember a short story by Chesterton (I no longer recall which of his millions of texts it was) that went like this. A priest was thundering and lightning from the pulpit about what would happen if people didn't take heed. "You will see what will happen... etc." Chesterton comments: "The good father was right in everything, except for one thing: the use of the future tense. For what was supposed to happen was already happening, right before the priest's eyes, for years." I apologize, your article is excellent, but there's nothing new here, everything has already happened. There is no time bomb, Dr. Gomes. It has already shattered (almost) everything, except for a remnant.
I’m not sure that this article solves the ecumenical issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome or merely democratizes it and this opens a latitudinarian position for all doctrine. The loss of the sic et non format of the Joint Declaration on Justification seems to reduce the cognitive content of doctrine. Thank you for your reflections.
What happened was smaller independent churches got consumed by the larger city (cosmopolitan) churches which had a single bishop. Also, if you didn’t agree you were run out as a heretic. There were multiple strains of Christian tradition in the first four centuries-Gnostics, Valentinans, Arians, etc. Constantine (after a bloody Christian riot) put his foot down and set up the Council of Nicea. Problem is it wasn’t a majority of bishops/elders present.
So just to be clear, you do not agree that the outright damnation of non-Catholics from the documents of Vatican I needs to be understood in its cultural context? You don’t think it was necessary for the Church to nuance the statement that anyone who dies as a Jew, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox are “a stranger to the hope of life and salvation” (MA 11)?
I’m not trying to start an argument, it just seems to me from my studies of pre and post-conciliar documents that there are some things you are misunderstanding or taking out-of-context. I’d challenge you to research implicit baptism of desire from the Summa Theologiae.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/baptism-of-desire
^ I’d recommend reading this on baptism of desire
Do you think Church documents that supported slavery never needed nuance to be understood in their historical context? What about women being barred from participating in a schola?
Nuance is not a change in doctrine, it’s a change in emphasis.
I’ve met some very holy Protestants in my life. One example being a close friend of mine who began “Rainbow Revival” - a ministry which provides community for those who have rejected an LGBTQ+ lifestyle for the sake of the gospel. About a year ago I attended one of their events and the testimonies of the power and love of God cut me to the heart. Preconciliar documents would have actually prevented me from attending such events.
I hope one day you have the privilege of meeting people like them. God Bless.
Baptism of desire, as defined by the Church (see the Council of Trent) means a desire to be baptized as a Catholic. It only applies to catachumens and those contemplating conversion.
The Church doesn't teach in nuance, She teaches with clarity and conciseness (see Pius X, and Pius VI).
St. Paul is clear: if we have faith that can move mountains, but have not charity, we have nothing. The Church tells us that communion with legitimate authority is charity. If we have not communion with legitimate authority, we don't have charity, and have nothing. Our Lord condemns the lack of faith. Pope Leo XIII said that rejection of just ONE element of Divine and Catholic Faith is equal to apostasy.
There is, therefore, no salvation outside the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Visible membership with Her is the only surety we can have. Outside that, it is just a crapshoot.
Your third paragraph is a slumgullion of nonsense.
I am repeating, or paraphrasing, what the Church has always said. The sin of heresy is a sin against Faith. A heretic is one who has no faith, and thus cannot be saved. Schism is a sin against charity. A schismatic is one who has no charity, and thus cannot be saved. The idea that somehow those with no faith or no charity can be saved is ludicrous.
Actually, you're not. You are omitting the very important document that Cardinal Ratzinger issued under Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus. In it he agrees that all salvation is mediated through the Church (without limiting the definition of Church to those in communion with Rome, as Catholics consider the Orthodox Churches true Churches), but acknowledges that visible membership is not a strict necessity.
But that is counter what Holy Church has already defined. There is only one Church through which salvation is mediated: the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ratzinger and V2 are teaching a novelty that had already been condemned. At V2, the architects of Lumen Gentium were asked by 3 astitute Benedictines to say "is" as opposed to "subsists in", to reflect the established doctrine taught by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. They refused, because they wanted a more "inclusive" idea of the Church (which Mystici Corporis condemns). The Vatican Council of 1870 defined that doctrine cannot ever "evolve" into something different than what it was originally understood. Pope Eugene IV, the Council of Florence, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Pius XII all understood that salvation is only through the Catholic Church. The Church cannot, then, teach anything different.
Admittedly, this is where the concepts of "infallibility" (which is I believe more accurately expressed as "irreformabity") and "development of doctrine" become hard to apply in practice. If what was expressed by the Second Vatican Council about "outside the Church, no salvation" as later explained in Dominus Iesus is correct, then it does indeed seem hard to reconcile with prior teaching. Catholics these days find ourselves in the position of having to figure out which parts of which documents are considered irreformable--which rather defeats the point of the charism of infallibility. Honestly, my head has been hurting because of this for the past few years. I was deeply formed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and their interpretation of Vatican II, so I cannot bring myself to share your perspective.
Thank you for the quick rundown on this document.
We literally know the name of the Popes during that time.
This is trash.
St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters are a witness to the Episcope during the earliest period of Church history - that does not justify the Pope, but there were certainly Bishops who oversaw their congregations and they did in fact exercise Church authority.
Ignatius does not address his letter to the Romans to the bishop of Rome. Also, in his letter to the Romans, he makes no mention of a bishop. I am specifically referencing historical research on the development of the papacy (and episcopacy) in Rome.
There are major textual problems with the corpus Ignatian letters and significant interpolations as well as forgeries. Of the 17 letters attributed to him, only seven are regarded as authentic. But even within these seven letters there is a short recension, long recension and a middle recension (with significant textual differences). One of the world's top Catholic patristic scholars publishing through the world's top Catholic pontifical institute dismisses three Ignatian letters (of the seven) as inauthentic. Moreover, the mention of the episcopos is regarded as a later interpolation and an anachronism.
That he does not implore his brothers to do, "Nothing with the Bishop" specifically to Rome still attests to the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Also that some of his letters might have been spurious does not actually validate what you say about all of them, specifically those dealing with the role of the Bishop in the Church.
It is no longer the consensus view that his letters are forgeries and of those that take that view, they are in the definite minority. What you say about the Episcope is also not the consensus of the scholars and is not an anachronism as it is literally in the Bible.
The New Testament uses the terms episcopos and presbyteros interchangeably.
Jesus also uses Disciple and Apostle interchangeably but they are not the same thing, though all Apostles were necessarily Disciples of Christ, not all Disciples were Apostles. Paul also called himself a Deacon but clearly held a much higher office.
This article misunderstands what the Church is. Dogmatic professions cannot be unuttered. If the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is wrong, the faith is a lie that collapses in on itself. Those who hate Catholicism may wish for the day, but anyone with the faith of the fathers holds strong against such an assault on Christ's Church (which has been promised protection anyway).
Anyone interested in rebuttals to the arguments presented here should check out: https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/how-strong-is-the-strongest-argument-against-catholicism/
One only hopes that Vatican accreditation is routinely reviewed and revoked.
Oh wow, such a hot take. Luther thought the church would crumble in his lifetime too.
The Ignatian letters are only one piece of the puzzle. Irenaeaus of Lyons, writing in ca. 150, uses the continued episcopacy of Rome as evidence against Gnosticism, arguing that the bishops of Rome, all of whom can be traced back to Peter, taught publicly. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, are generally considered the first three bishops of Rome (with some variation on Cletus).
Historical studies of ancient liturgical rites show that, until perhaps the 2nd century, the bishop was always the one who offered the Divine Liturgy, and it wasn't until the 2nd Century that presbyters began to offer the liturgy without the bishop, as the number of Christians grew. There is a reason why traditional Orthodox and Catholic theology on holy Orders has the orders completed at priest: the bishop is absolute fullness of the priesthood, not something else entirely.
This is interesting in the vain of this discussion.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/66343e9028842f2f20144bb8/t/66456090cf01d844c8b033a4/1715822736445/shift.pdf
Pope Francis and his friend Theodore McCarrick have defiled Jesus’s Church …
Further proof, if needed, that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, and very possibly the Antichrist. Oh well, he'll soinbe getting what's coming to him.