St. Vincent Ferrer is by far the greatest miracle worker Christianity has ever seen. Over 700 miracles were read during his canonization and they stopped because there were too many documented cases for them to read.
He raised over 30 persons from the dead.
He delivered over 70 persons from demonic possession. Just the mention of St. Vincent’s name caused devils to flee.
He converted over 25,000 Jews, 8,000 Muslims, and many heretics to the Catholic Church. He could go into a Synagogue or Mosque and convert all of them in one homily.
He announced that he was the Angel of Judgment from the Apocalypse. When bystanders jeered at him for saying so, he raised a woman back to life who publicly testified that he was indeed the Angel of Judgment.
Despite all of these accomplishments, there is one particular one that is forgotten.
His obsession was Catholic unity. At the time, the Church was divided, not in faith, but in leadership. Up to three men claimed to be pope at the same time. One was in Rome, one in Avignon, and the other in Pisa. St. Vincent Ferrer was Avignon line’s greatest champion, and his influence led to half of the Catholic world giving allegiance to Avignon.
After years of defending the Avignon papacy, St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist officially on the Feast of the Epiphany, 1416 A.D., at the Castle of Majorca.
Using private judgment, St. Vincent Ferrer denounced his friend Pope Benedict XIII for going into schism because he wouldn’t step down with the other papal claimants in order that the Church could be unified under one pope.
The great miracle worker had many followers and when St. Vincent Ferrer declared the Chair of Peter empty, nearly the whole Catholic world pulled away their allegiance to all papal claimants making way for Pope Martin V.
Without St. Vincent Ferrer, the Great Schism would have lasted many more years.
St. Vincent Ferrer’s example destroys all arguments against the principles of sedevacantism that no warnings, no declarations, etc. are necessary to know that a pope has lost his office due to heresy or schism.
Some might argue that the Avignon line was never the valid line anyway. However, that is a matter of opinion since the Annuario Pontificio technically is not an official Catholic document. It’s all beside the point because St. Vincent believed Benedict XIII was the true pope who lost his office automatically without any declaration from the Church. St. Vincent also rejected the Roman line throughout as well.
St. Vincent Ferrer, a Dominican highly educated in the Faith, became a sedevacantist by his own judgment against his friend, Pope Benedict XIII.
He knew his Faith, and he put it into practice.
St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us!
I could not agree with this article more. It is perfect. My contention going all the way back to Arch-bishop Lefebvre was, when he left ROME he should have declared Rome in HERESY, and seized the title of Pope. Formal or material heretic in the eyes of GOD does not matter. Rome is in heresy and has been since Vatican II. We Catholics would not have been divided IF, the good Arch Bishop finished the TASK of trying to preserve the Faith by seizing in the name of Christ HIS HOLY BRIDE.
Once he drew the line in the sand, I can assure you the road would have been no more difficult than it is today. As a matter of fact it might have been a whole lot easier. Choosing right over wrong is always better, but it does not mean there will be NO pain.
You can never negotiate with the devil! I guess history is proving that right as we see the Society of Saint Pius X negotiating with the devil for alleged unity
Rome has a heretic on the throne of Peter, and we as Catholics should unite and demand our Church BACK.
God Bless your efforts! However your arrows are wasted on nonbelievers. Aim them where they belong in ROME against the Seat of the Anti-Christ.
I recently replied to a private email concerning the article and was asked to place it on my website for the benefit of others. I’ve kept the identity of the person(s) private.
SPERAY: Hello,
I can only give my humble opinion. My replies below in black…
RED: Could you please ask Mr. Speray what the legal basis was on which Saint Vincent declared the Holy See to be vacant?
SPERAY: When I say, declared the Holy See vacant, I don’t mean declared in the sense that he had power over it, but in the sense that he’s declaring what has already happened. I’ll explain below what I think might be the legal basis for St. Vincent’s claim.
RED: What law lost the Pope his office?
SPERAY: It was the Divine law, which is that any pope who becomes a heretic or schismatic automatically loses his office.
RED: I can see how he could possibly have been invalidly elected, but I cannot see how he could have gone into schism by virtue of not having resigned.
SPERAY: Regardless whether Benedict XIII was ever a valid pope (which is debatable), St. Vincent believed he was the true pope. Now, “schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.39, A.1)
Benedict XIII knew his papacy was hindering the unity of the Church because of the confusion and doubt from the other half of the Catholic world. He also knew that stepping down would allow the confusion to end with a single pope that everybody could agree on; knowing for sure that IT would be the valid line. By not resigning under the circumstances, Benedict XIII was disobeying the law of Christ that the Church should be one. His thirst for power as pope was more important than Catholic unity under an unquestionable single pope.
RED: On the hypothesis that he was ever a true Pope, it is not up to anyone else to dictate to him that he should resign.
SPERAY: I disagree with this statement. The circumstances were so that someone should have done so, and no one was better qualified than St. Vincent Ferrer who was his greatest champion. Being a true pope wouldn’t be beneficial if enough confusion reigned that you may not be the true successor of Peter. The Great Western Schism is one of those extremely rare instances of such a happening.
RED: No one else “not even a saint“ has that legal power. It does not seem to make sense.
SPERAY: No legal power is required to acknowledge that a pope has lost his office. So it’s a moot point. Again, I’m only giving my thoughts on the matter. No one has solved the issue officially. The fact remains that St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist for the reason given. There is one other possibility, but I’ll keep it to myself for now.
SECOND REPLY BY “RED”
Dear Mr. Speray,
I have read your analysis with interest. It is not completely unflawed!
Crucially, your case depends, amongst other things, on this:
“I disagree with this statement [my statement that ‘ On the hypothesis that he was ever a true Pope, it is not up to anyone else to dictate to him that he should resign.’] The circumstances were so that someone should have done so, and no one was better qualified than St. Vincent Ferrer who was his greatest champion. Being a true pope wouldn’t be beneficial if enough confusion reigned that you may not be the true successor of Peter. The Great Western Schism is one of those extremely rare instances of such a happening.”
No, no one – not even the greatest saint who ever lived – is capable of dictating to a pope. The principle here is as set out in, for instance, Canon 1405 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “The First See is judged by no one.” A pope is accountable to no one but Our Lord Himself.
A non-Pope, indeed even an ordinary layman, can recognise that a clergyman has resigned from his office, whether by saying “I resign” or by publicly making some heretical statement either orally or in writing. But he cannot legally force him to resign. And, to the best of my knowledge, Saint Vincent at no stage offered a proof that Benedict XIII had never been a true Pope.
In short, you do not yet seem to have got the bottom of the basis on which Saint Vincent did whatever he did. Nor, yet, have I. (One would need to read a fairly detailed biography of him, which I have not done, at least for a long time.)
With best wishes,
MY REPLY:
Dear “RED”,
I’ve posted these emails in the comment section keeping all names (except myself) private. Anyway, my reply to your latest email below…
I think the problem is a matter of semantics. When you use the word dictate, you are using it differently than I and it’s my fault. I was thinking of dictate as merely telling by urging, since that’s how St. Vincent was acting, but that’s not how dictate is supposed to be used. I apologize.
I recently wrote on my website how Canon 1556 (not 1405) applies concerning judgment on the Holy See. Yes, no one, not even the whole Church can judge the Holy See of a crime. The pope is accountable to no one but the Lord. I agree.
However, there’s no problem with telling the pope in a highly suggestive way what he ought or ought not to do at times. Of course, we have St. Paul’s example with St. Peter. There’s another great example with St. Columbanus who admonished and reprimanded Pope Boniface IV.
I never said or intended to say that St. Vincent forced Benedict XIII to resign. I should have been clear that St. Vincent asked many times for Benedict XIII to resign for the sake of unity.
You stated, “And, to the best of my knowledge, Saint Vincent at no stage offered a proof that Benedict XIII had never been a true Pope.”
Proof or evidence? St. Vincent wrote several treatises on the validity of the Avignon line. If he had absolute proof, it would seem that we wouldn’t question who was truly pope at the time.
I hope that helps..
Sincerely,
Steven Speray
3RH REPLY BY RED
Dear Mr. Speray,
I am happy with your answers.
The main point, then, is that Saint Vincent Ferrer was not a Sedevacantist as we understand the term (he was only making an important contribution to the debate), and that therefore the title of these e-mails ought to be changed! – as also anything on the website or in your blog that suggests that he was.
Best wishes,
MY THIRD REPLY TO RED
St. Vincent was a sedevacantist as I understand the term. He recognized the office as being vacant, but becoming so after a pope lost it, whereas, I believe the office today was never validly filled. In both cases, there were claimants to the office, but the situation is a bit different in how they became vacant.
I just understand the term as a Catholic who believes the Office of Peter is vacant. However, today when a conciliar pope dies or steps down like Benedict XVI, the conciliar Catholics continue to follow the conciliar Church even though they would technically be holding the position of sedevacantism (the Chair is Vacant).
There are Catholic sedevacantists, and there are heretical or schismatic sedevacantists.
I would be interested in hearing how you understand the term.
Sincerely,
Steven
4TH REPLY BY RED
I don’t think my understanding of the term agrees entirely with yours.
Sedevacantist, a modern term, applies to those who are satisfied that the Holy See is vacant because of the operation of Canon Law, etc. It is a term used to contrast such people with those who hold the Holy See to be legally occupied or at least not definitely vacant.
MY 4TH REPLY TO RED
How would St. Vincent not fit under your rubric outside of the term itself being a modern one? For instance, the term pope was used much later for the one holding the office, but the principles, the office, and popes were always there.
And I’m not sure how our terms disagree. Where’s the point of disagreement?
Do you believe that there are non-Catholic sedevacantists? I don’t hold the Dimond brothers as Catholics but schismatics. That’s one example. There are also sedevacantists that believe the Chair has been vacant a hundred years and longer.
5TH REPLY BY RED
Perhaps I have not followed you correctly. I understand you to have said that Saint Vincent reckoned Pope Benedict to have been a true Pope at the time he, Saint Vincent, was writing his treatises on the relevant subject. If that is so, was he not evidently a non-Sedevacantist?
In answer to your other question, I imagine that there can be even Jewish Sedevacantists. As I understand the term, all that is necessary in order to be a Sedevacantist is to hold the Holy See to be vacant at a time when others hold it to be filled.
MY 5TH REPLY TO RED
That’s correct. St. Vincent was not a sedevacantist at that time he wrote his treatises. In my article, I explained that he defended the Avignon papacy and he became a sedevacantist Jan. 6, 1416 by withdrawing his allegiance to Benedict who St. Vincent believed went into schism.
He remained a sedevacantist until Pope Martin V.
We are sedevacantists now, but as soon as the office is filled again, if so ever, we will cease to be sedevacantists.
The only differences is that I (and perhaps you and Eric) believe the Chair today was never validly held by the conciliar popes whereas St. Vincent believed Benedict lost his office. However, the principles are the same for all of us. Popes can’t be heretics or schismatics.
I was using St. Vincent as an example against the likes of novus ordo trads who say warnings and declarations by councils must be made to say that a pope lost his office.
They might argue that St. Vincent was wrong for doing so, but they don’t have any Church teaching that could point to that fact, whereas we can point to him as historic precedent for the present day crisis.
The Remnant recently posted Robert Siscoe’s latest against sedevacantism, but St. Vincent undoes his entire argument.
Godspeed!
Steven
6th REPLY BY RED
On the facts as you present them, it does not seem to make sense. The best of my knowledge, by very definition it is impossible for a pope to go into schism. It seems that either your claim that Saint Vincent is wrong or a fact of some kind is missing. In the meantime, he does not seem to fit into the definition of Sedevacantist.
MY 6TH REPLY TO RED
You stated Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:24:12 -0000, “As I understand the term, all that is necessary in order to be a Sedevacantist is to hold the Holy See to be vacant at a time when others hold it to be filled.”
St. Vincent held the Holy See to be vacant at a time when others held it to be filled either in Avignon, Rome, or Pisa. That’s a fact of history, and it fits what you have described for what’s necessary in order to be a sedevacantist. St. Vincent became a sedevacantist for a time.
As for schism, a pope can go into schism in different ways. I already explained how Benedict XIII went into schism. Read below another way by Torquemada.
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468) (UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR) OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF “DEFENDER OF THE FAITH”
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,… it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)….” (Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
“By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism….
“He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
“By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed….”
Sincerely,
Steven
7TH REPLY BY RED
Good research. Congratulations and thank you.
I fully accept what Torquemada says, now that you have brought it to my attention. I do not think that he has yet solved our problem, or rather my problem, however. In the presumably comprehensive teaching that Torquemada gives on the subject, nothing that applies directly to the case of Pope Benedict XIII seems to be included. And I apologise if I have missed something or am being dopey, but I cannot find anything in our previous correspondence below that you have said, independently of Torquemada, that proves that this Pope went into schism (and therefore that genuinely makes Saint Vincent a Sedevacantist). Could you please very kindly give me your proof again?
With best wishes,
MY 7TH REPLY TO RED
The answer I gave independent to Torquemada was found in my first email on 11/28/14 to you through Eric, which I claimed was my opinion on the matter based on the historic facts):
Regardless whether Benedict XIII was ever a valid pope (which is debatable), St. Vincent believed he was the true pope.
Now, “schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.39, A.1)
Benedict XIII knew his papacy was hindering the unity of the Church because of the confusion and doubt from the other half of the Catholic world. He also knew that stepping down would allow the confusion to end with a single pope that everybody could agree on; knowing for sure that IT would be the valid line. By not resigning under the circumstances, Benedict XIII was disobeying the law of Christ that the Church should be one. His thirst for power as pope was more important than Catholic unity under an unquestionable single pope.
St. Vincent had asked him repeatedly over several years to step down for the sake of the Church, so that it could be united under one man who would be universally held as the valid pope. Because of confusion, the Great Western Schism wouldn’t be solved unless everyone stepped down (or be assassinated) AND that point was made apparent to all, especially to Benedict XIII through St. Vincent.
Therefore, in deciding that his place in the world was more important than Catholic unity would necessarily mean that Benedict XIII was separating himself from the law of Christ, which would necessarily separate him from the unity of the Church, thus he goes into schism.
The fact that St. Vincent withdrew allegiance and announced publicly that he no longer believed Benedict XIII was pope showed that he genuinely became a sedevcantist. His reason for doing so wouldn’t affect that point, regardless whether he was right or wrong in his understanding.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Steven
8TH REPLY BY RED
Thank you. And I am happy to say that this reasoning of yours now looks better than it did when I saw it for the first time!
If there is a weakness in it, it seems to me to be – at least on the basis of my present knowledge – in the third last paragraph of your email. What you say there involves making a judgement on Benedict’s internal motives, and why is it not possible that, rather than being motivated by worldly considerations, Benedict believed himself to have sufficient evidence that he was the true pope and that, in consequence of that, he ought not to resign?
In other words, how could anybody be sure of his motives for not resigning? And, unless those were his true motives, how would he legally have ceased to be pope automatically (which means by deemed resignation)? In yet other words, Saint Vincent surely had insufficient legal reason for his position if he did not know for certain what Benedict’s internal state of mind was?
Meanwhile, I do agree with you that, on the basis of what you say, Saint Vincent does seem to fall genuinely into the category of “Sedevacantist” even though the word had not yet come into existence at that time.
With best wishes and provisional congratulations,
MY 8TH REPLY TO RED
Legally, we don’t have to know the motives of the pontiffs. We judge in the external forum. St. Vincent judged based on the external acts of Benedict XIII.
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote in Book IX, Ch IX, n. 15: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
The principle is the same with schism. We can’t judge motives, hearts, etc. because this is the internal forum that only God can know. We judge in the external forum. I wrote in an appendix to one of my books:
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumedin the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity…Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)
Another canon law manual states: “If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed,either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (G. McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, 48, CU, Canon Law Studies 77. Washington: 1932)
The Faithful are not required to read the mind of a delinquent even if that person claims to be pope. The Faithful are not required to presume innocence of a cleric, especially the pope, before concluding that he is a heretic.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
Therefore, St. Vincent Ferrer followed the principles of the law. He believed that he had sufficient legal reasons for withdrawing allegiance to Benedict XIII since the situation was apparently made very clear to him (B. XIII) (and it was clear to most all of the Catholics at that time) that stepping down was the only way to solve the crisis. Unity for the Church is the Law of God.
Again, I’m just giving my opinion based on the facts that I have acquired. It all seems to fit for me.
Let me know if this explanation is sound.
Godspeed!
Steven
May you all have a blessed Advent.
Pete
You too, Pete. Godspeed!
From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts.
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 beatifude other than the baptism of water. This is a contradiction.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: You left out “ASSURES” which is the key word, but it doesn’t contradict anything. The fact that you say such foolishness means you don’t know the Catholic Faith. You’ve created a religion in your head thinking it’s Catholic. IT’S NOT. It’s Lionelism.
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?
SPERAY: NO ONE SAID GOD WAS LIMITED TO THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION. You’ve assumed it.
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.
SPERAY REPLIES: They aren’t Catholic so your point is moot. However, they don’t have to correct something that’s only erroneous in your head.
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.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another problem in your head. NO ONE SAID BOD is visible. Salvation is not visible in any respect unless it was made known in a special way by God. Which saint in heaven is visible to us?????? Answer that question.
They would have to be visible and known to us to be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
SPERAY REPLIES: Feeney’s error was that he believed in Baptism of Desire, but such a justified person wouldn’t go to heaven or hell. He said he doesn’t know where such a person would go. In other words, Feeney believe that person could be justified WITHOUT baptism, but he still wouldn’t go to heaven. YOU DON’T THE TRUTH ABOUT FEENEY! I’ve read everything he taught.
We have it here once. Defacto every one needs to enter the Church ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) but some do not have to enter the Church for salvation?
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Everyone needs to enter the Church but not formally. You’ve assumed formally, but no pope or council ever taught it. Pope St. Pius X taught that men can be saved without baptism. So did Pope ST. Pius V, and every pope since Trent.
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.
SPERAY REPLIES: No pope has ever implied even by inference of being able to see the dead. You personal made-up theology is a lie.
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.
SPERAY REPLIES: This statement is so silly, it’s not worth responding to.
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.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know the Catholic Faith, and you don’t know Feeney. You’ve simply created a religion that exist only in your head. Do us all a favor and stop spreading Lionelism in comment sections. Keep it on your own blog.
-Lionel Andrades
Feast of St.Francis Xavier.
HERETIC! The Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapist AntiChurch invented the Pelagian “material/formal” heresy in the 13th century! You’re either in or out! You’re way the Hell outside the Pale of OrthoDoxy! Baptism by another and worthy ReCeption thereof followed immediately by ConFirmation be it by a Bishop or the Holy Ghost HimSelf is the Sole Via into the Pale of OrthoDoxy! The Ancient OrthoDoxy Saintly Popes, Ecumenical Synods, and Fathers’ Unanimous ConSensus all repeatedly DeClared and DeFined this Dogma! Your post-schism apostate AntiPopes and AntiSaints and AntiDoctors are anathema for their denial of this Dogma! Your side constantly quotes forgeries done by heretics to make the Ancient OrthoDox Saintly Fathers look like heretics and themselves look OrthoDox! Your side also omits the part where the apostate Leonard Feeney also denied the Salvation Dogma he pretended to ProFess as he believed in something almost if not exactly identical to the Pelagian “Baptism of blood/desire” heresy which anyone who’s honest and read his book The Bread of Life page 137 would’ve known!
DECEMBER 3, 2014
Possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/possibilities-cannot-be-defacto.html
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question that I asked you to answer specifically. Your other replies demonstrate that you don’t understand a word I said. I feel sorry for you. I will no longer deal with you since you don’t have the ability to understand very simple things, and you don’t answer the questions. I’m just wasting my time. No more Lionelism on my blog please.
Lionel referred to “the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney” with regard to his rejection of BOD/BOB. Fr. Feeney’s interpretation was anything but the traditional interpretation. It was a novelty.
For the traditional Catholic interpretation, see here: https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire
There are several books about St. Vincent Ferrer on Amazon, I was curious if you recommend them or have any about his life you recommend. I found a book by St. Vincent called “Treatise on the Spiritual Life.” Have you ever read it? The others appear to be written by Andrew Pradel. Thanks
The Treatise on the Spiritual Life is excellent. It’s just a little pamphlet but it’s dynamite. Yes, Pradel’s book is really good. I’ve read it several times. Also, Henri Gheon’s book is most excellent.
See the books tagged “Saint Vincent Ferrer approximately 1350–1419” in the St. Isidore e-book library.
I read 2 Scholarly books on St. Vincent Ferrer, the story that he brought back a woman from the dead to prove that he was the angel of the apocalypse is from the 16th century not 15th. And there is good evidence that he did not write ‘A Treatise on the Spiritual Life’ but another theologian. He was the angel of the apocalypse and probably the greatest saint of all time even surpassing St.Francis of Assisi cause he was prophesied by St.John the Apostle. But there are lots of exaggerations about him i.e. bringing back to life a chopped up baby.
St. Vincent held that the Council of Constance’s deposition of Benedict XIII was valid, but the Council’s election of Martin V invalid. On Spain’s and St. Vincent’s subtraction from Benedict XIII, cf. Daileader p. 165-6.Daileader p. 172:
Then there are Vincent’s sermons, which similarly indicate that Vincent never accepted the Council of Constance’s legitimacy or authority. Extant sermons datable to the years 1415-1419 are fewer than sermons datable to the years 1411-1414. Nonetheless, they do exist. One searches them and Vincent’s undated sermons in vain for passages in which he advised his listeners to follow his example and submit themselves to the authority of the Council of Constance, as Gerson would have it, or urged his listeners to pray for Pope Martin V, the one and only true pope, as the canonization witness Bourdiec would have it. Instead, after January 6, 1416, Vincent said little about the schism, and what little he said indicates his continued rejection of the Council of Constance. On June 4, 1417–a date known through his reference to the age of Antichrist–and now in France, Vincent told his listeners that the schism had lasted nearly 40 years (ja ha prop de .XL. anys que dura lo cisma) and that presently there were three [anti]popes in the world: John, Gregory, and Benedict.⁴² [Sermons 1:208 (June 4, 1417).] For Vincent to assert on June 4, 1417, that there were three [anti]popes in the world was both stupefying and revealing. The Council of Constance had deposed John XXIII and Gregory XII fully two years earlier; Vincent had read aloud the Spanish subtraction 18 months earlier; the Council of Constance was still in session. Vincent mentioned none of these facts. The only concession that the friar made to changed circumstances was this: unlike earlier in Spain, he did not follow up his observation that there were three [anti]popes in the world with the even more provocative proclamation that, of the three, Benedict was the legitimate one. But there were still three [anti]popes. For Vincent, preaching in France in June 1417, the Council of Constance had done nothing to change the status of these three. The deposing of even Benedict’s rivals was illegitimate.Just as significantly, Vincent passed over obvious opportunities to proclaim his acceptance of the Council of Constance or Martin V. …
Often we hear about St. Vincent et al. supporting one pope (Clement VII, Avignon pope) and St. Catherine of Siena et al. supporting another (Urban VI, Roman pope), both elected in 1378 (cf. this table). But St. Vincent’s sedevacantist period began in 1416, when he disavowed himself of his friend Cdl. Pedro de Luna, elected Benedict XIII in 1394, of whom the saint was his confessor. St. Vincent died in 1419.
Some references:
St. Vincent wrote his Tractatus de moderno ecclesie scismate in 1380. The most recent biography of the saint, Daileader’s Saint Vincent Ferrer, His World and Life: Religion and Society in Late Medieval Europe (2016), describes the Tractatus on p. 22:
Vincent asked first whether, in a time of schism, it was necessary to accept a single true pope or whether one could accept both or neither. Having established in his response to the first question that one must accept either Urban or Clement as pope, Vincent then posed the second question, namely, which of the two men elected by the College of Cardinals was the true pope. Having established that Clement’s election alone was valid, Vincent then asked whether this truth had to be preached and revealed to the Christian people. To each of these three major questions, the friar assigned five additional questions. Vincent answered all 15 questions within a scholastic framework: he posed his answer; cited his rational arguments (rationes) and his authorities (chiefly Aquinas, named on several occasions, and the Bible, with some references to Augustine and Aristotle); raised objections to his own arguments; and then rebutted the objections.
Ch. 9 ¶¶21-23 of Andrew Pradel, O.P.’s 1863 St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment explains why St. Vincent can be considered a sedevacantist:
…the King of Aragon detached himself from his obedience to Benedict XIII, and from that moment the cause of the union was accomplished.
The King’s edict was published on the 6th of January, 1416.
Our Saint spent the beginning of the year in traveling through many provinces of Aragon to withdraw the people from obedience to Benedict XIII, and to attach them to that of the Council of Constance, an undertaking by no means easy considering the long period in which those countries had lived under the spiritual dominion of Peter de Luna. But to all their prejudices the Saint opposed solid reasons, which carried conviction to every mind. In a short time, Spain, as well as Italy and the rest of Christendom, awaited with submission the choice of the Council of Constance, ready to acknowledge the elect of the Council as the veritable Vicar of Jesus Christ.
But St. Vincent refused to attend the Council of Constance and disagreed with its outcome, the election of Martin V! St. Vincent never publicly recognized Martin V or the Council of Constance (Daileader pp. 168-76). Thus, the great saintly logician just kept preaching repentance. This is certainly a great lesson for us today.
Blessed be the Holy barque of St Peter.
‘I protest that I will live and die in this holy faith’ (From the act of faith)
[…] [1] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/ […]
You mean the same apostate Vincent Ferrer who, just like the apostate Thomas Aquinas, denied original sin and taught the Pelagian “Limbo” heresy?
Speray: Ah, the dumb devil is back like I said he would in the comment section of my article https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=4586&action=edit . Thank you for proving me right! I’ll let you have the floor since there’s nothing but the truth from the good saints and popes you quote. Because your father is the devil, you reject the Catholic faith of which they preach!
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Thomas Aquinas, “Summa TheoLogiæ”: SuppleMentum ad Pars III Quæstio LXVIIII, Articulus IIII, ReSpondeo:
“Consequently, the state of the Saints before Christ’s AdVent may be considered both, as regards the rest it afforded, and thus it is called Abraham’s Bosom, and, as regards its lack of rest, and thus it is called the Limbo of Hell.”
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Thomas Aquinas, “Summa TheoLogiæ”: SuppleMentum ad Pars III Quæstio LXVIIII, Articulus VI, ReSpondeo:
“But, as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the Limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the Limbo of the InFants, just as we have stated in reference to Limbo and Hell.”
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Thomas Aquinas, “Summa TheoLogiæ”: SuppleMentum ad Pars III Quæstio LXVIIII, Articulus VII, ReSpondeo:
“The abodes of souls are distinguished according to the souls’ various states. Now the soul united to a mortal body is in the state of meriting while the soul separated from the body is in the state of receiving good or evil for its merits; so that, after death, it is either in the state of receiving its Final ReWard, or in the state of being hindered from receiving it. If it is in the state of receiving its Final ReTribution, this happens in 2 ways: either in the respect of good and then it is ParaDise; or in respect of evil and, thus as regards actual sin, it is Hell, and, as regards original sin, it is the Limbo of the InFants. On the other hand, if it be in the state where it is hindered from receiving its Final ReWard, this is either on account of a defect of the person and thus we have Purgatory where souls are detained from receiving their ReWard at once on account of the sins they have committed, or else it is on account of a defect of nature, and thus we have the Limbo of the Fathers, where the Fathers were DeTained from obtaining Glory on account of the guilt of human nature which could not yet be expiated.”
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Thomas Aquinas, “Summa TheoLogiæ”: ApPendix I, Quæstio I, Articulus I, ReSpondeo:
“Now the defect transmitted to us through our origin, and having the character of a sin does not result from the withdrawal or corruption of a good consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles, but from the withdrawal or corruption of something that had been superadded to nature.”
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Vincent Ferrer, Sermon on Judas the BeTrayer:
“The mildest of PunishMent is given for original sin, because they suffer only PunishMent of the damned, that is, not to see God; but they do not have PunishMent of the senses. Thomas says in 2 Sentences, DiStinction 32, Question, Article 2, that those children who die only with original sin, have great consolations for themselves, debating among themselves about philosophy, which they know better than philosophers in this world know, nor are they saddened, nor does it displease them that they do not have ParaDise. Just as a peasant is not saddened because he is not the king of the Romans; for he well knows that it is not fitting for him. Nor are you sad that you do not have wings for flying; for it is not fitting for you to fly like an eagle. So, therefore, those children are not sad that they do not have the Kingdom of God; for they know that it is not owed to them. If they were saddened, they would be experiencing sensible PunishMent. So, therefore, it would have been good for Judas, that he had never been born into this world, but that he had died in the womb of his mother, because then he would have died only with original sin. And so it is now with those children, offspring of Christians, jews, and Mahometans, who die only with original sin. original sin is not a sin committed by a creature. It is received, like a statue of gold or silver, which falls into the mud, so the soul, made in the Image of God, is destined for a place in the Temple of Glory, but it falls into the mud of carnal generation. If God would have made man some other way, he would not have had original sin. And, so, since it is not a sin committed by a creature, God does not give to a creature a felt PunishMent from that sin alone. But, from the Fact that he died with that sin, he shall never see God, although he may approach the Gate of ParaDise seeking entrance, because he has never committed another sin. And Christ ReSponds: “Look at the sin which you bear.”. He shall respond: “Lord, I have not done it.”. To which Christ ReSponds: “And so I do not give you a painful PunishMent, but, because you have a stain, you shall go to Limbo with the others.” Or, if you will, it is like a king who committed a castle most strong and impregnable to his knight, who, like a traitor, hands over the castle to his enemy. At 1st, the king does not wish to kill the treasonous knight, although he can, but he swears that never will any of his kind enter into his court. And so it happened. If it is asked why should the sons of the soldier, not yet conceived, born, nor begotten, be punished? ReSponse. Because they are the children of the traitor. But, because they never did anything wrong, therefore the king does not inflict any punishment but he does not want them in his court. … Note, those children, dying with only original sin, and existing in Limbo, on 1 hand, are ReGratiated to God, because they are freed from the PunishMent of Hell. …
…
… They were not in perdition, so He does not give them PunishMent of the senses. And, so, Job in the person of the damned says, “Why did I not die in the womb? Why did I not perish when I came out of the belly? Why received upon the knees? Why suckled at the breasts? For now I should have been asleep and still.” [Job 3:11–13]. Note, “and still”, namely, with the other children in Limbo, because, in the Hell of the damned, there is no silence, but tumult and outcries of pain.” [A699 3rd Day of Holy Week]
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Vincent Ferrer, Holy Sabboth ComMentary on Colossians 3:
“Limbo: The 2nd place is called the Limbo of the infants as we say 1 door where all the children are who died with only original sin. original sin is not committed by them, but received, like a painting falling into the mud, et cetera. Therefore that sin is not called actual, but original, because that stain is received in corporal generation. And, so, because it is not an actual sin, they do not have physical pain there. … Thomas says, in 2 Sentences, DiStinction 34, Article 1, and, see there, …, that when they see the Glory of the Blessed, that they do not grieve, nor are saddened, because it is not relevant for them, just as you are not saddened because you do not have a Kingdom, which does not pertain to you. But the son of a king, a prince, to whom the kingdom pertains, grieves about this. Neither are you saddened when you see an eagle flying, because you do not have wings. So neither do these children grieve. To these, the Soul of Christ DeScends for Glorious ConSolation. Practically, imagine how as the Soul of Christ appeared at the Gate of Limbo, those children immediately knew Christ to Be the Savior. Seeing His Soul, and adoring Him, saying: “Glory Be to Thee, Lord, Who Hast Died for mankind.”, et cetera. To whom, He said, “How are you?”. They replied, “Lord, it is Good with us. We have great natural intelligation and many graces and virtues.”, although they do not have Sanctifying Grace, “We debate with each other and love each other.”. Christ Said, “Therefore, give thanks to God Who freed you from the fire of Hell.”, He showed them the place of the damned and, praise the Lord, and you will rest in peace.” [A746 Sabbato Sancto Paschæ]
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Vincent Ferrer, Sermon 1 on the DisCovery of the Holy Cross:
“… And, so noone, before the Passion of Christ entered into Heaven, but went either to Hell, or to the Place of Purgation, or to the Place of children, Limbo, or the Bosom of the Immaculate, which is called the Bosom of Abraham. …”
OrthoDox correction: original sin is sin and all who die with it are damned.
Pope Saint Zosimus, 16th Carthaginian ProVincial Synod (A.D. 418), Canon 2 on original sin and Grace:
“Likewise, it has been DeCided, whoever says infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be Baptized, or says they are indeed Baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of ReGeneration, whence it follows that, in regard to them, the Form of Baptism, “unto the remission of sins”, is intelligated as not True, but as false, let him be anathema. Since, what the Apostle says: “Through 1 man, sin entered into the world (and, through sin, death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [Romans 5:12], must not to be intelligated otherwise than as the Catholic Church, spread everywhere, has always InTelLigated it. For, on account of this Rule of Faith, even infants, who, in themselves, thus far, have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore Truly Baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by ReGeneration.”
Pope Saint Zosimus, 16th Carthaginian ProVincial Synod (A.D. 418), Canon 3.1 on original sin and Grace:
“If any man says that, in the Kingdom of Heaven, or elsewhere, there is a certain middle place, where infants who die unBaptized live in Bliss, whereas, without Baptism, they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, into Eternal Life, let him be anathema. For, when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a CoHeir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will, without doubt, run to the left.”
Pope Saint Felix IIII, 2nd Orange ProVincial Synod (A.D. 529), Canon 2:
“If anyone asserts that Adam’s transgression injured him alone, and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through 1 man into the whole human race, he will do an inJustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: “Through 1 man, sin entered into the world (and, through sin, death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [Romans 5:12].”
Pope BoniFacius II, 2nd Orange ProVincial Synod (A.D. 531), Canon 22:
“Concerning those things which belong to man. No man has anything of his own but unTruth and sin. But, if a man has any Truth or Justice, it is from that Fountain of Grace for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be ReFreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.”
The fact the apostate AntiPope “John XXII” AntiCanonized the apostate Thomas Aquinas an apostate AntiSaint in 1323 and the apostate AntiPope “Callistus III” AntiCanonized the apostate Vincent Ferrer an apostate AntiSaint in 1455 proves the apostate AntiPopes “John XXII” and “Callistus III” were never Popes but tell us more of how you never strayed from Christianity into paganism after the schism! 😂
Speray: You don’t know what paganism is. Better go look it up you dumb devil. You’re the one who has strayed into the hands of Satan with your stupidity. I’m sure I’ll see you again making ridiculous comments. Like a raving lunatic, you don’t know how to stop.
You do realize slander is a mortal sin against the 8th ComMandMent and being short of any adequate reply is no excuse right?
Speray: You don’t know what mortal sin is. Your whole problem is that you don’t know what your talking about nor understand the quotes you cite.
I just quoted the Ancient OrthoDox Saintly Popes condemn your apostate AntiPopes and AntiSaints. You better take your own advise before you give it because the only dumb devil talking to right now is you.
Speray: I replied to each of your points and you still don’t understand.
hindus use japa, japamala, rudraksha “prayer” bead necklaces for their vain repetitions. Siddharthists use rudraksha “prayer” bead necklaces for their vain repetitions. Mahometans use sibha, suhba, or tasbih “prayer” bead necklaces for their own vain repetitions. Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapists use rosary bead necklaces for their own vain repetitions. Hunnish Greek ConStantinoPolitan AntiCæsaroAntiPapists use chotki knot necklaces for their own vain repetitions. sikhs use mala or guru granth sahib “prayer” bead necklaces for their vain repetitions. If you want protection from demons, evil energies, et cetera; you don’t go to manmade japas, japamalas, rudrakshas, sihbas, suhbas, tasbihs, rosaries, chotkis, malas, guru granth sahibs, et cetera; you go to God ALone. God ALone Is OmniPotent.
Speray: Again, you don’t know what vain means and you classify the rosary with non-Christian stuff.
Laodicean ProVincial Synod, Canon 36:
“They who are of the SacerDote, or of the Clergy, shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or “astrologers”; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we ComMand to be cast out of the Church.”
Note! rosaries/chotkis, scapulars, pseudomiraculous medals, et cetera are amulets!
Speray: They are sacramentals.
Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst, ComMentary on Matthew 6:7–8:
“True prayer consists rather in bitter groans of Penitence than in the repetition of a set of words.”
Note! Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst’s Ordinarily Magisterial DeFinition of Matthew 6:7–8 matches the protestant antiChrists’ “interpretations” of Matthew 6:7.
Speray: He was referring to the babble of pagans, not repeating of set prayers of the bible, etc. You may pray the Our Father over and over again, but it wouldn’t be vain repetition of which Pope St. Gregory is obviously referring. You don’t have POpe St. Gregory’s full sermon do you? You just took one line out of it that was cited on wiki.
Thank you for again proving us right but tell us more of how you never strayed from Christianity into paganism after the schism! 😂
Speray: You don’t know what paganism is. Better look it up so that you know what you’re talking about next time. Lol.
You know but couldn’t care less what mortal sin is. Your problem is you’re a liar.
You answered none of my points but only dodged with strawman. Everyone who’s honest who sees this knows that.
Again your repetitions are vain no matter how many times you “pray” to the damned and you practice pagan superstitions as if they were Christian DeVotions.
Your AntiSacraMentals are amulets just all the other pagan “prayer” beads.
The constant repetitions of the same “prayers” are indeed pagan babblings no matter is you use the Sign of the Cross, the Lord’s Prayer, the Angelic Salutation, the Gloria, et cetera.
You better take your own advice before you give it.
The devil is back. He can’t stop with his nonsense. Lol.
dude, I think you need to take a brake…
vato I’m not interested in white you think. You don’t even know the difference between “break” and “brake”. You just another npc. I’m a protagonist.
Speray, Mike proved to you that Vincent is a self-proclaimed angel/prophet and rejected the dogmas, such as the dogmas against limbo; and he even promoted and endorse the heretical summa theologica which also teaches that heresy along with many other heresies, such as latria to images. And you failed to respond to all of those point, or at least respond with proofs rather than slander and insults
Miguel proved nothing except that he’s a fool. I already replied to all of his nonsense on the other article, but I have no need to keep responding to garbage interpretations.
I proved you’re the apostate fool! You replied to nothing! You dodged everything! You can’t reply to anything because you don’t know we’re right!
I’ve dodged nothing devil. You just don’t know when to stop.
I proved you’re the apostate fool! You replied to nothing! You dodged everything! You can’t reply to anything because you know we’re right!
Ah the raging devil keeps coming back just like I said you would. Thank you for proving me right over and over again.
Not really. It’s been proven that they all taught heresy and were invalidly canonised. And every pseduo-catholic/sede pretends they can’t see it.
The sede vacante dates back way further than 1958 if the heretic loses office
None of them taught heresy.
You know nothing but how to lie!
And the devil keeps on replying. Don’t know how to stop, do you? Lol.
I’m not the 1 who has much more in common with a ChristKiller than a OrthoDox Catholic Christian!
Dude, you are on the same team as your father, the devil.
Vato, you are the 1 with much more in common with a ChristKiller than a Christian! I’m not the 1 who believes ChristKillers who hate His Name who die as such can go to Heaven via “invincible ignorance”. I’m not the 1 who believes Satan has Churches. I’m not the 1 who defends an apostate AntiSaint who peached inside an apostate meetinghouse called the “Cathedral” of Valencia which is exteriorly desecrated with the jew-Masonic-Satanic hexagram!
The energizer devil bunny keeps going and going…
The energizer devil bunny awaits you in the mirror
I guess you have nothing better to do than to come back again and again with complete stupidity. You’re finished here. I will send the rest of your crap to spam.
You know the nonsense here is yours! You know you can’t “explain” away your apostate AntiSaints’ heresies!
The devil doesn’t stop. You’ll just keep on and on.
You are the devil here. You have more in common with a ChristKiller than with me!
The apostate Vincent Ferrer was so deep in prelest he falsely proclaimed himself to be the Angel of the Apocalypse and played “God”.
apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Vincent Ferrer:
“I am the Angel of the Apocalypse and am preaching JudgMent! Some of you go near Saint Paul’s Gate and you will find a dead person borne on men’s shoulders on the way to the grave. Bring the corpse hither and you shall hear the proof of what I tell you.”
He never resuscitated anyone. Either his pseudomiracles were all staged much like the pseudoholocaust or the “dead” he “raised” were still alive and all his pseudomiracles are from Satan. There’s 0 other possibilities.
You know nothing.
The devil here is you! Maybe you should be louder when you “pray” next time! Maybe your apostate AntiSaints will here you from Hell next time!
I’m letting you have your say so that people know how you are.
You’re only hurting yourself in the eyes of honest people because everyone who’s honest who sees this will realize both sides of the schism strayed big time!
Just don’t know how to stop do you? You keep proving me right. Thank you!
You keep proving us right. You’re in no position to be telling anyone to do his or her own homework. You already admitted you believe Dogmas change overtime. If the Tradition to not hold funerals for CateChumens who die unBaptize can be changed, so too can the Tradition to never CommUnicate in the Sacred with schismatics, heretics, or apostates change so shut up and submit to the apostate AntiPope “Francis”!
and going and going….
Speray, they did teach heresy.
Alphonsus taught the heresy that it is in allowable opinion that one can be saved by implicit desire in ignorance, or outside the church. [I can show you the source if you’re keen on getting into it]
Speray: That’s not heresy! As for the source, I’ve written much on it.
Anti-catherine of Sienna also rejected the sede vacante dogma:
‘“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope.” [Anti-saint catherine]
Speray: I’ve dealt with this 8 years ago here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/st-catherine-of-siena-and-sedevacantism/ She is not teaching heresy!
Hence the devil can be the pope, she says.
Speray: No, she is using hyperbole to emphasize a point.
I’m not sure if you guys are aware but heresy is not the only thing that warrants excommunication.
Speray: The sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature. Excommunication is a penalty.
Sins against the morals, such as fornication, simony, usupration, murder, perjury, allowing idolsm worshipping another god, all these things warrant exocmmunication. Catherine clearly denied this dogma, which appears to be a defense for the immoral antipopes that were reigning in her time.
Speray: No, these sins do not automatically make one excommunicated. As for St. CAtherine, you’re simply making more out of it than you need.
Antipope Martin V reinstated that heresy:
Errors of John Hus: “#20. If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.” [5] Denzinger 646. 1556 – 1572 A.D.
So the so called popes are confirming the heresy.
Speray: Wrong! It’s not heresy. You are preaching the heresy of Donatism of the 4th century condemned by the Church. You are the heretic!
If you look into the anitpope Anastasius II case in the 400-500’s, the whole church condemned him as an antipope because of his cunningness in joining with the miaphysites. No one in the church said “a betrayer can be the pope”, but they removed his name from the dyptychs.
Speray: Nope.
The catholic and orthodox fathers reinstated the dogma against baptism of desirE:
Speray: Nope!
The Second Council of Braga (572 AD), Canon xvii: ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”
Speray: That doesn’t mean that BOD is not true. It was simple the discipline on how to treat catechumens who died, which is just fine.
Seek your own “Catholic Encyclopedia”, it tells you that the catholic church never held catholic funerals, not even prayers, for anyone who died outside the church, including catechumens.
Speray: Of course, we know that. Many things were done over the course of years and then changed.
So where on earth are all these anti-saints coming up with the idea that it’s an allowable opinion to teach baptism of desire for catechumens let alone baptism of desire for pagans?
Speray: It’s called using your head and thinking about Christ and His Works.
Have you seen what it also says about the forgery written in Ambrose’ name?
Speray: It’s no forgery. You must call it that because it doesn’t square with your heresy.
THe fathers never taught it. Hence There’s obvisouly an apostasy long before 1958. Either discover and learn the forgeries or condemn the fathers as anti-fathers. IT’s an ultimatum. The Former is obviously true.
Speray: Even St. Augustine taught BOD. City of God (397)
“Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: ‘Everyone… that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.’ (Matthew 10:32).”
Limbo was condemned by name, by Augustine, by Pope GRegory, who said children will suffer the flames of hell, and by Bishop Petarius a papal legate. The list goes on. This dogma was preserved in the 1000’s: “Unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned [in Hell].” – “Bishop” Anslem. They were reiterating the oral dogma of the apostles.
Speray: Not a dogma. It was an opinion. St. Anselm also taught that Mary was a sinner, but it was an opinion at the time.
So whats going on here? Everytime a post millenia “pope” or “saint” changes the dogma and sacred traditions, we’re just gonna sit here saying “oh but that one wasnt infallible, oh but that one wasnt spoken from the chair of peter, oh but that one was spoken from the chair of peter but not in a specific formula”. This is utter non sense.
Speray: What’s utter nonsense is the fact that you don’t know your stuff and are ready to condemn others based on your faulty understanding.
The orthodox bishops who reiterated and defended all these dogmas were in communion with the pope from day one. This 1958 sede vacante thesis makes the early church look like a scitziophrenic mental patient who had no idea what it was talking about, untill “it was revived by the revelations of aquinas and the summa”.
I’m sorry man but we can’t have the catholic church while holding onto the post millenia area antipopes. You gotta remmber as well, this “1958 and ignore everything before it thesis” wasn’t defined by a so called pope as well. So if you wanna play the “we’re fallible card”, then on what grounds is your thesis made by fallible men infallible?
Speray: The fact that you asked the question just shows that you’re lost! You haven’t bothered to understand anything but rather would listen to the buffoonery of Miquel Pasamano. That’s pitiful. Now go away and do some homework. I don’t have time to teach you things that you can learn if you tried.
Re: “Speray: That [ignorance of the mysteries] is not heresy! As for the source, I’ve written much on it”
You’re wrong. Pope Leo condemned the idea that people can be saved and members of the church while stuck in the darkness of ignorance:
“But if there are any WHO ARE STILL IN THE DARKNESS OF IGNORANCE or the discord of perversity, let them be instructed by the authority of those whose doctrine IN GOD’S CHURCH WAS APOSTOLIC AND CLEAR, that they may recognize that on the Incarnation of God’s Word we believe what they did, and MAY NOT BY THEIR OBSTINACY PLACE THEMSELVES OUTSIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST, in which we died and rose with Him: because neither loyalty to the Faith nor the plan of the mystery admits that either the Godhead should be possible in its own essence, or the reality be falsified in His taking on Him of our flesh. [Letter 139 Dated 4th September, in the consulship of the illustrious Aetius and Studius (454).
Speray: There’s nothing here that goes against BOD. You apparently don’t know what BOD entails.
What you’re preaching is the pelagian heresy, that man can obtain salvation by “natural faith, desire and implicit desire”.
Speray: Absolutely not. You just demonstrated that you absolutely don’t know what BOD is and what it entails.
This was condemned by the orthodox fathers. Pelagius himself ended up confessing it and was forced to denounce it in his abjuration when he got busted teaching what you’re teaching with the apostate alphonsus.
Speray: Wrong. St. Alphonsus is not teaching Pelagianism. He clearly is against it, but you fail to make distinctions.
ABJURATION OF PELAGIUS, LETTER TO POPES AND SAINTS INNOCENT I/ZOSIMUS [1]
“Now this power of free will we declare to reside generally in all alike–in Christians, in Jews, and in Gentiles. In all men free will exists equally by nature, but in Christians alone is it assisted by grace. In the one, the good of their created condition is naked and defenceless; in these, however, who belong to Christ, there is defence afforded by Christ’s help. Those deserve judgment and condemnation, because, although they possess free will whereby they could come to have faith and deserve God’s grace, they make a bad use of the freedom which has been granted to them. But these deserve to be rewarded, who by the right use of free will merit the Lord’s grace, and keep His commandments.”
Notes:
+ “In these, however [Orthodox Christians], who belong to Christ, there is defence afforded by Christ’s help.”
The good that people do outside the church is different to that which orthodox christians do; the former is defenceless, or unable to save them from the fires of hell, though they cannot even do common good, natural law, without God’s aid. The latter, however, profit to salvation as members of the Body.
Speray: What saves anyone from Hell is God’s grace. No one can do good without it. BOD is something God does to man when he responds to Grace. God does the saving.
Hence, you guys are literally pelagians resurrected under the name “Pope Pius XII”. The guy was an undercover masonic jew, not a pope.
Speray: A total lie and you will pay dearly for saying it.
Re “Speray: No, she [Anti-saint catherine] is using hyperbole to emphasize a point.”
I never said that she’s not using a hyperbole. What I said is that she’s denying the dogma that mortal sins, crimes, don’t warrant excommunicatation.
Speray: Not a dogma. What warrants a declared excommunication is not the same as what makes for an automatic excommunication. What you are teaching is a form Donatism.
This dogma was reiterated in Pope Leos canonical letter, letter 169. So I don’t get what you’re trying to do by offering me an article of your opinion on why we should reject the dogma just because you need to justify the heresies of your antipopes and antisaints.
Speray: They are not heresies. You are spreading the heresies.
She’s clearly saying that grave crimes don’t cause the pope to lose office.
Speray: Which is true.
Pope leo: “For of such the Holy Ghost speaks by the Apostle, “having an appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” and again elsewhere, “they profess that they know God, but in deeds they deny Him. ” And hence, since in every member of the Church both the integrity of the true Faith and abundance of good works is looked for, how much more ought both these things to predominate in the chief pontiff [the pope himself is bound to the dogma], because the one [holding onto dogmas of faith] without the other [obeying the laws of morals] cannot be in union with the Body of Christ.”
Speray: A pope must have the faith, of course. You can’t have good works without it. This doesn’t mean a pope with faith can’t sin. Every sin is bad, but it doesn’t warrant being severed from the Body of Christ unless its heresy, schism, or apostasy.
Re: “Speray: The sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature. Excommunication is a penalty.”
Again, that’s not what the church taught
Speray: Yes, that’s what the Church has taught.
Nicaea canon 9: If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime [mortal sin], and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that which is blameless.
Speray: You seem not to understand discipline and the consequences laid down.
And the same goes with clerks who, after being validly ordained, commit sensual sins not only heresy–they are ipso facto deposed:
“But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.”
Speray: That’s still true today. Do you not understand what’s being said?
The church must publicly declare it but the church can only judge according to the external forum, wherefore the church deposes them once it is detected, but the operation of divine law does it automatically as with heresy, it’s just like if you were to commit adultery, you’re cut off from communion and grace before a priest knows about it, the loss of grace doesn’t depend on the public declaration of man
Speray: That’s not what the canon means at all.
More anathemas against crimes against morals:
Council of Arles
Canon 5. “Concerning actors, be it further resolved that as long as they continue to carry on that occupation they be excluded from fellowship.” [immodest occupations and act warrant excommunication]
Speray: Anytime a person is immoral publicly, he is to be excluded from communion. That’s never changed. That doesn’t necessarily mean one is outside the faith, but dead in the faith. Every mortal sin causes one to be dead in Christ, but it doesn’t exclude them or else they could go to Confession and be forgiven.
See also Elvira:
Synod of Elvia, 309 CANON 79.
“If one of the faithful plays dice [gambles] for money, let him be anathema for one year”.
Speray: That what the law at the time, but laws and disciplines change accordingly. Pope Gregory the Great even changed them the canon of the mass and the people wanted to murder him for it. He had the power to do it in the way that he did.
“Let him be anathema”, same language used for crimes against the faith. Why is catherina dividing the church with her new opinion?
Speray: She is not. The canons don’t apply to popes or cardinals anyway. Did you not know this?
So when catherina and your antipopes say that a pope can “be the devil incarnate”, or commit heinous crimes and still be obeyed as the pope according to your romantic “hyberbole”, when people were anathematized for playing the pagan game of dice, you deny the dogma regardless of how romantic you try to make it sound.
Speray: You don’t know what you’re talking about!
Elvira CANON 41
“The faithful are warned to forbid, as far as they can, that idols be kept in their homes. If, however, they fear violence from their slaves, they must at least keep themselves pure. If they do not do this, they are to be considered outside the church.”
Why are they no longer considered outside the church? Why are your “popes” allowed to do this and not be considered outside the church?
Speray: Just answered it.
And why is it, as you will say, “fallible”?
Speray: I didn’t, because universal laws are INFALLIBLE!
Becuase your antipopes literally have idols on st.peter’s desecrated basilica, and catherina is a liar who is trying to defend excommunicates in the exact same romantic laugage that the “sspx” use. You see, there was nothing fallible about the canons, but you guys cut em off whenever your antipopes and antisaints do what warrants instant anathema. Like with the canon against [BOD] or prayers for deceased catechumens, or against the office of a pope who “was satan incarnate”, committed fornication, simony or whatever.
Speray: Nope. You just don’t know what you’re talking about!
RE: “Speray: Wrong! It’s not heresy. You are preaching the heresy of Donatism of the 4th century condemned by the Church. You are the heretic!”
And this is where all of you romanists stump yourselves. You should have studied a little before you created your own “magisterial website”. You have no idea what the Donatist heresy is. The Donatist heresy is the heresy that the lapse or sinners lose the mark of the sacrament when they fall and therefore they need to be “rebaptized” or “reordained” or “receive confirmation again” and etc.
Speray: It’s more than that. It teaches that sacraments are invalid if the cleric is in mortal sin.
The Church teaches that excommunication causes the affects of the sacrament to cease, for example, the sacerdotal functions are suspended in the exocmmunicated priests; the power to ordain is suspended in the bishop; the profit of salvation in the baptized ceases; the graces of salvation, which make one a true christian, in the sacrament of confirmation cease. If you read Augustine’s work, he condemns donatist for saying that the sacrament gets dissolved. And that’s where you’ve stumped yourself. The catholic church actually teaches that crimes against faith and morals warrant an invalid ordination.
Speray: You don’t believe in Augustine’s work. You call it forgery. Lol. You pick and choose what you will accept.
See the case of Maximus
FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE – 381
Canon 4. “Regarding Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which surrounded him in Constantinople: he never became, nor is he, a bishop; nor are those ordained by him clerics of any rank whatsoever. Everything that was done both to him and by him is to be held invalid.”
Hence there’s no such thing as a schismatic “valid and illicit ordination”. But use guys employ this tactic to make it out as if Donatist was condemned for teaching that crimes against faith and morals dont warrant the loss of office, when the church herself rejected every ordination of those that were done outside of canonical approval. Donatist taught the valid sacrament is dissolved by sin.
If you read chapter 3 of Pope Saint Leo’s letter, after saying that crimes against morals even cut the pope off from the Church, he warns the church to not accept a bishop even if he appears to profess all the dogmas, if he is, as your anti saint calls it, “the devil incarnate”, an immoral person in mortal sin:
“And hence, even if in his profession of faith he neglects nothing, and deceives us in nothing, it best consorts with your glory absolutely to exclude him from this design of his , because in the bishop of so great a city the universal Church ought to rejoice with holy exultation, so that the true peace of the Lord may be glorified not only by the preaching of the Faith, but also by the example of men’s conduct. Dated 17th of June, in the consulship of Magnus and Apollonius (460). (By the hand of Philoxenus agens in rebus. )
Re: “The council of braga is not true”
The Second Council of Braga (572 AD), Canon xvii: ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”
To cast catechumens outside of the church and offer no prayers or funerals for them is the dogma that they died outside the church otherwise they would still pray for them.
Speray: Lol. That doesn’t mean it’s a dogma that they went to hell outside the Church.
The Church doesn’t uphold this dogma “mere for decoration because we’re not sure if they got saved or not”. There’s no discipline binding on the dead. They are dead and therefore they are outside because they died outside the ark. IT’s not a mere discipline
Speray: Public prayers is a discipline and where they forbid it, it’s a discipline that must be obeyed, but it doesn’t mean the discipline can’t be lifted and changed. There was a law that infants were not to delayed baptism, communion, and confirmation, but that changed to baptism alone.
Re: “Ambrose’ work isn’t a forgery”
Your own “catholic encyclopedia” admits it. There was no such thing as a funeral oration or mass for those who died without water baptism, or for deceased catechumens, hence the Council of Braga anathematizing anyone who did such thing. If Ambrose did this they would have anathematized him. This can be found in Pope Siricius’ letter as well: “Whoever wishes to not be cut off from the apostlic faith see of Rome, let him follow the aforesaid rule”. He gave this warning to those who were failing to complete water baptism. To prove the forgery case even more. Have you read you “pope’s” letter on baptism of desire? He supposedly teaches that there is such thing a invalid priests. Is he so dumb to say such a thing or was it a forgery? Do your studies on John the Deacon and Popes Zachary and Gregory. The Greeks had already started forgeing letters in the name’s of pope’s before the great schism. The eastern Photian sect is founded on forgery of pope John VIII. But your sect loves forgeries, because you guys probably created them. You know the “canons of hippolytus”? Guess what, you’re own scholars addmited that it is a forgery. It’s not ironic that all these forgeries post humously have BOD inverted into them, after the church anathematized anyone who prayed for a deceased catechumen?
Speray: Everything you don’t like is a forgery.
“Speray: ” Against-Limbo is Not a dogma. It was an opinion. St. Anselm also taught that Mary was a sinner, but it was an opinion at the time.”
It was a dogma, Anslem reiterated the dogma regardless of his opinion on Mary, but whenever you romanists don’t like what the church fathers reiterated from the apostles and whenever your anti-saints smoke something to teach something different, you need to make the fathers look like uneducated children who had no idea what they’re talking about to defend pagan scholastics and make yourselves look like “the defended of the deposit of faith”, really, you, your antiipopes who couldnt go a day with out desecrating a church or cathedral with idols and devils and immodesty?:
Speray: You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and I’m not interested in instructing you.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, The Chair of Peter:
“For they [infants who die in original sin] even receive everlasting torments [suffer in hell], who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence ‘Truth’ says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [John 3, 5] [Books of the Morals, xxi]
Speray: It was commonly held that all unbaptized infants went to hell. Some say that Limbo is actually part of hell.
Saint Bishop Augustine Defends the Dogma Against The Limbo Heresy:
‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475).
The Infallible Regional Council of Carthage 419, Canon 110 Condemned “the middle place” by name:
“Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.”
Speray: I agree.
RE: “Speray: Of course, we know that. Many things were done over the course of years and then changed.”
Dogma and oral tradition never changes.
Speray: Dogmas don’t changed but traditions most certainly do.
I even noticed on your website you stated that laws of faith can change. You err in this matter because you think laws of faith can change.
Speray: Church law can change and does change. Pope Gregory the Great changed the canon of the Mass.
The problem with you guys is that you overthrow councils and canons on faith and morals and say they can change whenever your anti-saints or anti-popes get busted for teaching differently.
Speray: Nope. You just don’t understand that some things that are taught are not dogmas. They are advancing opinions or giving general understandings.
For example if the church declared anathema to anyone who gambles, commits adultery, or fails to remove idols [as per the canon of Elvira], you will say that they got it wrong and worseoff you thus declare the orthodox fathers are heretics so that you guys can gamble and play the whore and dowhatever to receive an invalid communion the next day.
Speray: Nope. You refuse to understand.
See this for laws on faith don’t change:
“we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.” Third Council of Constantinople : 680-681 A. D.
Speray: Absolutely, and you have done made your own new religion by making dogmas out of opinions and anathematizing every one who doesn’t follow YOUR UNDERSTANDING!
But hey, when pseduo-catholics and the cult of pius xii have the “right” with aquinas to pick and choose what belongs to the faith, why can’t you change it, aye?
Speray: You get to pick and choose what you think belongs to the faith and call everything else forgeries.
But not vatican II. Vatican II has no right to change anything [sighs]
Speray: Not dogmas, which have been declared dogmas. The difference is that you declare opinions and laws dogmas. [sighs]
RE: “Speray: Even St. Augustine taught BOD. City of God (397)”
I am aware of that hence why i tried to warn you against forgeries.
Speray: The City of God is not forgery. You just make up complete crap to fit your false new religion.
Example, when you cite this passage, as many from the cult of pius xii do, why dont you guys mention the canons under Pope John III that whoever prayed for them or offerred funeral services were anathematized, no one was even allowed to pray for their sins to be removed in purgatory, why?
Speray: Very simple, but you’re not interested in hearing the truth.
Because the church never believed in baptism of desire or even hope of it otherwise they could have prayed at least in hope of their sins being removed in purgatory.
Speray: Not at all. The Church never believed against BOD.
This is why Pope Siricius states in his canonical decree that “they must be baptized in the case of necessity lest they perish in desire of it”.
Speray: Mere desire is not the same as Baptism of Desire. Of course, people perish for merely desiring to be baptized. BOD is much more than that. I deal with Pope Siricius here:https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-3/
Pope Leo as well. What happenned to the chair of Peter being infallible?
Speray: I have no problem with their teachings, but I don’t have distorted understanding of them as you and Pasamano have.
Is become the chair of “Aquinas”? I dont endorse ibranyi but can you really condemn the guy when he presumes that scholasticism to come from the devil? IT’s done nothing but allow the dogma to be “changed” and up for “interpetation”. See what Augustine actually taught, and Saint Ambrose:
Bishop Augustine of Blessed Memory: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
Bishop Augustine: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
Bishop Ambrose of holy memory, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
IF they taught BOD, they would have been excommuniccated by Pope Siricius and other popes.
Speray: They did teach and Pope Siricius didn’t teaching against them. You just don’t understand Pope Siricius’ teaching.
So you’re playing with the forgeries to make em look like sciztophrenic patients.
Speray: The only one is playing is you.
RE: Speray: There’s nothing here that goes against BOD. You apparently don’t know what BOD entails.
That’s because this point was never about BOD. It was about the matter of ignorance, implicit desire to worship the true God etc, the so called “invincible ignorance”. I don’t think you get what I was trying to say here. Anyways moving on.
Speray: You just proved that you don’t know what’s up. BOD entails no more ignorance, implicit faith, etc. God infuses explicit faith, true repentance, etc. because of the response to His Grace.
Speray: Lol. That doesn’t mean it’s a dogma that they went to hell outside the Church.
A bunch of orthodox fathers are not assembling together to reiterate the dogma in a specific canon against burying and praying for deceased catechumens for mere “opinion” and “entertainment” purposes. You fail to understand that those who were refused prayers and funerals were considered to be outside the church that is not saved, or in hell, and therefore those who prayed for them were as men who denied the outside the church there is no salvation dogma.
Speray: Not exactly. There was a time where the Church gave both the Host and Chalice to the people in the Roman rite, it was changed to giving the faithful just the Host. The purpose was to prevent people from thinking you need both to have the whole Christ. In the case with catechumens, it may prevent people from thinking baptism is not necessary. After a while, better instruction helps Catholics realize that baptism is necessary, but there’s no reason to believe that God can’t save under extraordinary circumstances.
Speray: “Public prayers is a discipline and where they forbid it, it’s a discipline that must be obeyed, but it doesn’t mean the discipline can’t be lifted and changed.”
Again, you’re failing to understand that it’s not a mere discipline. They died outside the church and perished outside the church and that is why no prayers were prayed for them.
Speray: Nope. There’s the distinction between the external and internal forum. They may have died outside the external bonds of the Church but not necessarily the internal bonds. Again, the discipline is to keep ignorant Catholics from getting the wrong idea. You’re one of them except in the other extreme.
If it’s a mere discipline, then you may as well join vatican II who overthrow the dogma against praying with heretics “because it was a mere discipline”. Laws on who were are allowed to pray for and with are laws of the faith.
Speray: There’s a difference between dogmas and disciplines. There’s also divine law. The Church can’t change a divine law, which praying with heretics falls under.
RE: Speray: Everything you don’t like is a forgery.
Try to debate logically rather than with emotions. It has nothing to do with prefrence. The matter of the fact is that there are forgeries and detecting forgeries is just as important as learning doctrines of the faith, as I will show you futher down.
Speray: This is not about emotions. It’s about facts and you refuse to accept facts.
As I stated before, the so called canons of hippolytus. It’s a proven forgery. Alot of you guys, all due respect, both V2 and V2, use this as one of your sources for your BOD articles. I still don’t get why you’re dodging the fact that they’ve been proven to be forgeries. I’m not saying all letters of Hippoltus were forged, but heretics forge crap into their works by editations or by new translations.
Speray: You called the City of God by Augustine a forgery, at least part of it. That’s ridiculous! He taught BOD plain and simple. It’s over right there for you!
RE: “Speray: It was commonly held that all unbaptized infants went to hell. Some say that Limbo is actually part of hell.”
There’s no limbo in hell. Hell is hell.
Speray: Limbo is an aspect of hell. It’s not saying limbo is something other than hell. Hell has different degrees.
Infants truly suffer the flames, and that is what was commonly held. That’s what The Popes and fathers explain, as shown in the councils and orthodox fathers [this term includes popes] that I presented to you. They clearly say that they suffer in hell. If they didn’t define it so clearly, I would agree with you right now.
Speray: They didn’t say they suffered the same as with those of mortal sin. There’s the suffering of loss of the vision of God. They are clear about that, but they are not clear about what type of suffering.
RE: “Speray: Dogmas don’t change but traditions most certainly do.”…”Speray: Church law can change and does change. Pope Gregory the Great changed the canon of the Mass.”
…Well yeah, dogmas don’t change. There’s oral dogmas and written dogma [2 Th 2:15].
Speray: You don’t get to decide what is oral dogma.
Everything we received was either written or orally passed down to us by the apostles, including the mass and instructions to not grant prayers or funerals for deceased catechuments.
Speray: These aren’t all dogmas. Some are disciplines.
You’re trying to equate the dogma against baptism of desire and the dogma of rejecting masses for catechumens with mere “discipline”, as if the apostles didnt hand this dogma down to us, like ”
Speray: BOD is a dogma. You must believe that God can save apart from the sacrament of Baptism.
Leo made it up out of no where because He was confused” or something like that.
Speray: No, you’re confused.
There’s no discipline binding on the dead, they’re buried outside the church and rejected from our prayers for a reason. To declare someone outside the church is a doctrine of faith not discipline.
Speray: They aren’t declaring them to be in hell, but only making a law about how to treat them. It’s true that they died outside the Church in THE EXTERNAL FORUM. That’s all. You’re conflating that with going to hell. The Church didn’t say they went to hell.
Hence dead catechumens were declared to have perished being worthy of no prayer.
Speray: Nope! The Church doesn’t need to declare that they died outside the Church in the external forum because that is obvious. I gave you one reason why masses for them was forbidden.
Discipline, the thing which you think changes, is something like the law of penance, but it doesn’t change in the way you guys think.
Speray: What?
For example, someone who was sentenced to fasting for 15 years penance may have his sentenced reduced to 3 years if he fasted on one meal a day with vegetable and water as his meal. The discipline is not changing but it’s being fulfilled. It’s the same with the mass. The dogma of the mass is not changing, the sacrament in the mass, the prayers, the essence, remain the same, adding more psalms isn’t rejecting the dogma of mass.
Speray: You are really confused!
If such were not true, then by your own standards you would have to accept the Novus Ordo invalid mass.
Speray: You have demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The reason the NO mas is invalid is due to the change in the matter, form, or minister. If those where not changed, the mass would be illicit but valid. The Protestant Mass of Henry VIII was valid until Cramner changed the form.
It’s easy to understand, but you guys are chained to a system of invalid canonizations that if you speak against the dogmas that your antisaints rejected, you’re considered “an attacker of the saints and catholic church”.
SPeray: No one is speaking against any dogmas. You don’t know what dogmas are exactly.
Speray: “The City of God is not forgery. You just make up complete crap to fit your false new religion.”
+ Heretics edit parts in the book by writing new translations. I’m not saying the city of God is a fabricated book. For example, In one of Augustine’s works, SERMO AD CAESARIENSIS ECCLESIAE PLEBEM [Chapter 6]: “Extra Ecclesiam catholicam totum potest praeter salutem. Potest habere honorem,” It says that a man may have honour outside the church, as Jesus says, “woe to you when men speak well of you”, but modern translations have edited it to say “office” not “honorem”.
Speray: That’s a pitiful example. You can’t say they added the part I cited. You only want it to be a forgery because you can’t reconcile it with your false understanding.
+ Another example is the so called commentary on Corinthians by “Ambrose”. Ambrose never wrote it, hence Ambrosiaster (“Star of Ambrose”) is the name given to the anonymous author of the earliest complete Latin commentary on the thirteen epistles of Paul. And if you read into it, he it teaches divorce and remarriage for men but not for women. It’s insanse that none of you, who are meant to be the defenders of the church, will not bother to condemn the forgeries.
Speray: Another pitiful example. We know about forgeries, but you can’t call everything a forgery just because you don’t agree with it. You next couple don’t
help you case.
+ John the Deacon properly notes in Book IV of his Life of the same Blessed Gregory, ch. 75, where, speaking about the Dialogues, he says: “Zacharias, the bishop of the Holy Church of Rome, a man most learned in both Greek and Latin, during the time of the Emperor Constantine, about 175 years afterwards, turned these books into Greek and published them in the Eastern Churches; nevertheless, the crafty perversity of the Greeks, erasing a word, caused the Son’s name to be taken out when mention was made of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father.” They did this as well in Pope John VIII’s name.
+ The eastern unorthodox sect is founded upon the forgery of Pope John VIII, they claim that they are the true “church” because Pope John VIII overthrew the ecumenical council. If you don’t wanna bother detecting forgeries, then you may as well join their sect and admit “the church failed”.
My point is if you see “Fathers” “contradicting” themselves in the same book, one page saying no baptism of desire, and another page saying baptism of desire, or one page saying divorce and remarriage is a heresy, and the next page divorce and remarriage is not a heresy, or a pope teaching against the papac or a gainst filiqoue, you can pereceive that an orthodox saintly bishop won’t contradict the dogma and his own words like uneducated fool, and therefore it’s been forged. And you know what is the orthodox opinion by looking at what the church practiced, the same church they belonged to.
Speray: Would you say some Scriptures are forgeries since they appear to contradict each other? For instance, the gospels give different accounts about Our Lord’s Resurrection and the number of angels that were seen, etc. Or do you try to reconcile how they are not actual contradictions? I don’t believe at all that Pope Siricius is condemning BOD as I explained.
RE: “Speray: Mere desire is not the same as Baptism of Desire. Of course, people perish for merely desiring to be baptized. BOD is much more than that.”
I will check out your article once I am done. But I get what you’re trying to say. However, Pope Siricius doesn’t imply that he’s speaking about those who merely desired and remain in that desiring state. He clearly mentions that they’re not merely desiring it, but begging for it: “let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for.”
Speray: Merely desiring doesn’t contradict begging because if you’re merely begging, you’re in the same boat. Begging is not BOD.
This aligns with the dogma that all deceased catechumens did not enter heaven and therefore did not receive catholic funerals and burials.
Speray: There’s no dogma that says this and the Church has never even implied such a thing. I gave you one reason for why the Church did what it did. I could give you more examples and why the Church did them, but they are still disciplines for the good of the Church at the time.
Re: “Speray: They did teach and Pope Siricius didn’t teaching against them. You just don’t understand Pope Siricius’ teaching.”
They’re specifically telling you that if someone died on the way to baptism, they perished in hell. This interpetation is confirmed by the church’s refusal to pray for catechumens.
Speray: Absolutely not. They very well could have said this, but they did not!
Speray: It’s [Donatist heresy] more than that. It teaches that sacraments are invalid if the cleric is in mortal sin.
You stumped yourselves again. He taught that in regard to the indellible mark of baptism; and that is what Augustine argues in Contra parmen, especially in regards to “the sacrament dissolving due to motal sin”. If you read the canon of Nicaea, it states that no ordination is valid if the one being ordained is in the state of lapse, or in mortal sin/sensual sin. If you read other canons, laws against morals excommunicate one from the body of Christ. But you pelagian cult lowers the dogmas of morals to “mere disciplinary laws” so that you can gamble, get invalidly ordained in sensual sin, or do simony, or not remove idols, and still hold office.
Speray: Nope. You just don’t understand the issues at all.
RE: “Speray: Anytime a person is immoral publicly, he is to be excluded from communion. That’s never changed. That doesn’t necessarily mean one is outside the faith,”
RE: “Speray: She [catherine] is not [changing the law]. The canons don’t apply to popes or cardinals anyway. Did you not know this?”
They do apply.
Speray: Nope. You don’t know the faith at all.
That’s the whole reason the church seperated themselves from antipope anastasius II before a public declaration was made and removed his name from the dyptchs. They did the same to Liberius when they presumed he broke the canon. Pope Leo, as proven to you, says that even he, the pope, is bound to the code of the moral law under pain of anathema.
Speray: No, Pope Leo didn’t say that. You added it. He said “abundance of good works.” Every pope sins.
To be outside of communion, or in other terms, “let them be anathema”, means your cut off from the body of Christ.
Speray: No kidding.
This is the whole reason that you don’t understand the meaning of deceased catechumens not allowed to be buried in communion with the church. When we say “let nestorius and etc be anathema”, or “outside of fellowship”, it means what it means. It doesn’t need the scholastic cult to explain it away.
Speray: Heretics are automatically cut off unlike other sinners. But a heretic in the external forum may not be a heretic in the internal forum because obstinacy is required. Therefore, being cut off in the external forum or BODY of the Church doesn’t necessarily mean cut off from the Soul of the Church or Christ. Men can be unjustly excommunicated or anathamatized.
Because you used foul language, I’ve cut out the rest of your comment. “And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. (James 1:26)”
“For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. (1 Peter 3:10).”
You have condemned yourself. You will no longer comment on this Catholic Website.
Even the Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapist apostate Richard Ibranyi would mop the floor with you in a debate over your apostate AntiSaints!
Nope, you’re just a nut.
Nope. You’re just in prelest and a liar. Even the Greco-Russian Photian CæsaroPapist SedeVacantIsts will tell you either the post-1054 apostate AntiPopes were never Popes or the Papacy is heresy.
Actually, you are the one who has been lying devil.
Actually, everyone who’s honest and sees this knows you’re the 1 who’s been lying, “Lucifer”! I heard you lose your debate against Bob Dimond!
and going… There was no debate but a telephone exchange where he lied. I lost nothing.
I listened to that debate you call a mere telephone exchange and you’re the 1 who lied and stuttered the whole time too
Now you are the liar. Everything I stated was true.
That may be why no one bothers to refute his material on the heresies of the anti-saints and the blasphemies and desecrations of the pre vatican 2 antipopes
It’s all been refuted many times. Unfortunately, you don’t read and study to know that.
It’s never been refuted. It’ll never be refuted. It can never be refuted. Unfortunately, you’re vested interests count on your readers not actually doing any actual research other than a 5-minute search on Google or Bing!
and going…
Why bother arguing with people like you and Miguel? You act like self proclaimed theologians who dictate “the true” meaning of things.
Steve demonstrates how you are wrong in your conclusions in a previous comment regarding BOD and I bet you will neither acknowledge it nor change your mind. In a sense we, including myself, are wasting each others time with one another.
When you click on Miguel Pasamano’s profile he says this: I’m a self-defense enthusiast since 1995. I’m part of Cobra Kai since 2005. I’m a SedeVacantist since 2016. I’m a GeoCentrist since 2017. I’m a TerraPlanist since 2018.”
What he forgot to mention was that he was a fool since the day he was born.
To mention nothing on my bio. When we click on your bio, we see you neglected to mention you’re a shill for the jew world order which is why you have much more in common with a ChristKiller than with an OrthoDox Catholic Christian!
Excuse me Pope Miguel Pasamano. I forgot I needed to ask for your permission first before I wrote anything. It looks like you have excommunicated me by declaring that I’m of the Jew World Order. What “infallible” thing do you have to say next?
Excuse yourself and your own apostate AntiPope Stephen over here. You’ve both ExCommUnicated yourselves by being part of the jew world order. Your own apostate AntiPope Stephen over here admits he teaches the Laws of Faith can change. Me and Johnny are the 1s whose positions are those of the Ancient OrthoDox Saintly Fathers. Y’all ain’t.
I neither forgot nor neglected to mention anything on my bio. When we click on your bio, we see you neglected to mention you’re a shill for the jew world order which is why you have much more in common with a ChristKiller than with an OrthoDox Catholic Christian!
I never said Steve was the pope. Just how am I guilty of taking part in the Jew World Order? Which pope do you believe was the last pope and why? Instead of calling me a shill you need to chill.
You’re wasting your time arguing with him. The guy is probably possessed. He doesn’t know how to stop. He’ll send two comments for every one you send and most of them will be nothing but telling you what kind of person you are. He’s a real devil and will never be allowed on here to spew his lies and garbage again.
You know, of course, the apostate Pasamano replied several more times calling me: a paid shill, coward, snowflake, and said I proved to have 7 demons. He doesn’t know the definition of any of these things. He just goes on about babbling with pagan rosaries and praying to dead antisaints who followed antipopes. Anyone who won’t answer all of his stupid comments and ridiculous interpretations to citations are cowards and snowflakes to him. He will never stop regardless of the facts because he belongs to Satan. Real Christians don’t act like him and never did. In reality, he hates Christ and the very popes he cites.
Why bother arguing with people like Martin over here. Steve demonstrates nothing but his own Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapism. Here’s a little OrthoDoxy 101!
Elviran ProVincial Synod (A.D. 309), Canon 41:
“The FaithFul are warned to ProHibit, as far as they can, that idols be kept in their homes. If, however, they fear violence from their servants, they must at least keep themselves pure. If they do not do this, they are to be considered outside the church.”
Elviran ProVincial Synod (A.D. 309), Canon 79:
“If 1 of the FaithFul plays dice for money, let him be anathema for 1 year.”
1st Arles ProVincial Synod, Canon 5 (A.D. 314):
“Concerning actors, be it further resolved that as long as they continue to carry on that occupation, they be ExCluded from CommUnion.”
Note! All immodest occupations incur Ipso Facto Latæ Senteniæ AutoMatic (DePosition and) ExCommUnication!
Pope Saint Sylvester, 1st Nicene Ecumenical Synod (A.D. 325), Canon 9:
“If any SacerDote have “advanced” without ExAmination, or, if upon ExAmination, they have made a confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the Canon have imposed hands upon them, not with standing their confession, such, the Canon does not admit, for the Catholic Church ReQuires that which is blameless. But, if, as time goes on, any sensual sins should be found about the person, and he should be ConVicted by 2 or 3 Testifiers, let him cease from the Clerical Office. And whosoever shall transgress against these will imperil his own Clerical Position as a person who presumes to disobey this Great Synod.”
Note 1! A crime is otherwise known as a mortal sin!
Note 2! Ipso Facto Latæ Sententiæ AutoMatic Deposition and ExCommUnication is independent of the saysos of men.
Pope Saint Sylvester, 1st Nicene Ecumenical Synod (A.D. 325), Canon 12:
“They who have been called by Grace, have given evidence of 1st fervor and have cast off their belts, and afterwards have run back like dogs to their own vomit, so that some have even paid money and recovered their military status by bribes, such persons shall spend 10 years as prostrators after a period of 3 years as hearers. In every case, however, their disposition and the nature of their Penitence should be examined. For they who, through their fear and tears and perseverance and good works, give evidence of their conversion by deeds, and not by outward show, when they have completed their appointed term as hearers, may properly take part in the prayers, and the Bishop is ComPetent to DeCide even more favorably in their regard. But they who have taken the matter lightly and have thought that the outward form of entering the Church is all that is ReQuired for their conversion must complete their term to the full.”
Note! The Church anathematizes all who join pagan, schismatical, heretical, and/or apostate police or militaries.
Pope Saint Damasus, 1st ConStantinoPolitan Ecumenical Synod (A.D. 381), Canon 4:
“Regarding Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which surrounded him in ConStantinoPolis: he never became, nor is he, a Bishop; nor are they “Ordained” by him Clerics of any Rank whatsoever. Everything that was done both to him and by him is to be held invalid.”
Note! All mortal sinners, schismatics, heretics, and apostates are in capable of SacerDotal Acts.
The heretic Donatus was anathematized not for preaching the Dogma that mortal sinners, schismatics, heretics, and apostates cannot hold Office, Power, or Title but for preaching the heresy that the Indelible EmBlem is remissible, which anyone who honestly read Bishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo Regius’ works against the heretic Donatus would’ve known.
ExCommUnication causes the affects of the SacraMent to cease (e.g. the SacerDotal Functions suspended in the ExCommUnicated SacerDotes (e.g. the Power to Ordain or ConSecrate suspended in the ExCommUnicated ExBishop), the profit of Salvation ceases in the ExCommUnicated (e.g. the Effects and Graces of Baptism and ConFirmation which make 1 a Christian cease) which Bishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo Regius thoroughly explained in his works against the heretic Donatus.
Your own encyclopedia admits the works forged in ArchBishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Ambrosius of Milan’s and Bishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo Regius’ names in which they’re purported to have taught the Pelagian “Baptism of blood/desire” heresy which they never did is a forgery and, had they done it, they’ve not only been ConDemned and forced to AbJure alongside the heretic Pelagius but also looked like schizophrenic patients.
ArchBishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Ambrosius of Milan, De Mysteriis (A.D. 390–391):
“You have read, therefore that the 3 Testifiers in Baptism are 1: water, Blood, and Holy Ghost; and, if you withdraw any 1 of These, the SacraMent of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the Cross of Christ? a common element without any SacraMental Effect. Nord, on the other hand, is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5]. Even a CateChumen believes in the Cross of the Lord Jesus by which also he is Signed; but, unless he be Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the Gift of Spiritual Grace.”
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius:
“However much progress the CateChumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius (A.D. 391):
“When we shall have come into His [God’s] Sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s Justice. Then noone will say:… “Why was this man led by God’s direction to be Baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a CateChumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not Baptized?”. Look for rewards and you will find nothing except PunishMents.” [The Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 3 #1496]
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius (A.D. 395):
“…God does not forgive sins except to the Baptized.”[The Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 3 #1717]
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius (A.D. 412):
“… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but Salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an Ancient and, as I suppose, Apostolic Tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and Participation at the Table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to Salvation and Eternal Life? This is the TestiMony of Scripture too.” [The Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 3 #1717]
Bishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Augustinus, The Soul and Its Origin:
“Let noone promise infants who have not been Baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven; for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them.” [PatroLogiæ Latinæ Migne 44:475]
Bishop Doctor Saint Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo Regius quoted the heretic Pelagius’ Letter and ConFession to Pope Saint Innocent in his work On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin.
Pelagius, Letter and ConFession to Pope Saint Innocent:
“Now this power of free will, we declare to reside generally in all alike, In Christians, in jews, and in gentiles. In all men, free will exists equally by nature, but, in Christians alone, is it assisted by Grace. In 1, the The “good” of their created condition is naked and defenseless. In these, however, who belong to Christ, there is defense Afforded by Christ’s Help. They deserve judgment and condemnation, because, although they possess free will whereby they could come to have Faith and deserve God’s Grace, they make a bad use of the freedom which has been granted to them. They, however, deserve to be rewarded who, by right use of free will, Merit the Lord’s Grace and keep His ComMandMents.”
Note 1! jews are Idumite Idumean Babylonian gypsy gentiles.
Note 2! The word “jew”/”jews” didn’t exist in its current form until 1775.
Note 3! The “good” that people do outside the Church is different to that which OrthoDox Catholic Christians do which alone is good. The former is defenseless and unable to save them from the fires of Hell. They can’t even do Natural Law without God’s Aid. The latter alone is profitable to Salvation as members of the Body of Christ.
Note 4! Your pseudodoctrine is literally Pelagianism.
Pope Saint Zosimus, 16th Carthaginian ProVincial Synod (A.D. 418), Canon 2 on original sin and Grace:
“Likewise, it has been DeCided, whoever says infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be Baptized, or says they are indeed Baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of ReGeneration, whence it follows that, in regard to them, the Form of Baptism, “unto the remission of sins”, is intelligated as not True, but as false, let him be anathema. Since, what the Apostle says: “Through 1 man, sin entered into the world (and, through sin, death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [Romans 5:12], must not to be intelligated otherwise than as the Catholic Church, spread everywhere, has always InTelLigated it. For, on account of this Rule of Faith, even infants, who, in themselves, thus far, have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore Truly Baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by ReGeneration.”
Pope Saint Zosimus, 16th Carthaginian ProVincial Synod (A.D. 418), Canon 3.1 on original sin and Grace:
“Also it seemed good, that if any man says that the Saying of the Lord, “In My Father’s House are many Mansions” [John 14:2] is to be intelligated as to mean that, in the Kingdom of Heaven, or elsewhere, there is a certain middle place, where infants who die unBaptized live in Bliss, whereas, without Baptism, they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, into Eternal Life, let him be anathema. For, when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a CoHeir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will, without doubt, run to the left.”
Pope Saint Zosimus, 17th Carthaginian Provincial Synod, Canon 110 (A.D. 419):
“Likewise it seemed good that: whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be Baptized, or says that Baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the Laver of ReGeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the Formula of Baptism for the remission of sins, is to be intelligated as false and not true: let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be intelligated what the Apostle says, “By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in which all have sinned.” [Romans 5:12], than the CatholIc Church everywhere diffused has always intelligated it. For, on account of this Rule of Faith, even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly Baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by ReGeneration.”
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Epistle 139 (4th September A.D. 454):
“But, if there are any who are still in the darkness of ignorance or the discord of perversity, let them be InStructed by the Authority of them whose Doctrine in God’s Church was Apostolic and Clear, that they may recognize that, on the InCarnation of God’s Word, we believe what they did, and And may not, by their obstinacy, place themselves outside the Body of Christ, in which we died and rose with Him: because neither loyalty to the Faith nor the Plan of the Mystery AdMits that either the GodHead should Be Possible in its Own Essence, or the Reality be “falsified” in His taking on Him of our flesh.” [in the consulship of the illustrious Aetius and Studius]
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Epistle 169:2:
“For, of such, the Holy Ghost speaks by the Apostle, “having an appearance of Godliness, but denying the Power thereof” [2 TimoTheus 3:5], and again elsewhere, “they profess that they know God but, in deeds, they deny Him” [Titus 1:16]. And hence, since, in every member of the Church, both the integrity of the True Faith and abundance of good works is looked for, how much more must both these things to predominate in the Chief Pontiff, because the 1 without the other cannot be in Union with the Body of Christ.”
Note 1! The Pope himself is bound to the Dogma.
Note 2! All holding onto Dogmas of Faith without obeying the Laws of Morals cannot be in Union with the Body of Christ.
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Epistle 17th Quartilis (falsely called “june” A.D. 460):
“And hence, even if, in his ProFession of Faith he neglects nothing, and deceives us in nothing, it best consorts with Thy Glory absolutely to ExClude him from this design of his; because, in the Bishop of so great a city, the UniVersal Church must rejoice with Saintly ExUltation, so that the True Peace of the Lord may Be Glorified not only by the Preaching of the Faith, but also by the example of men’s conduct.” [in the consulship of Magnus and Apollonius]
The apostate AntiSaint Catherine Sienna denied and the apostate AntiPope “Martin V” condemned this Dogma regardless of how Romantic you try to make it sound!
The apostate AntiPastor AntiSaint Vincent Ferrer preached inside the apostate AntiCathedral Valencia exteriorly desecrated with the jew-Masonic-Satanic hexagram!
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great:
“With them whom we have not communicated while they were living, we do not venture to communicate while they are dead.”
Pope Saint Felix IIII, 2nd Orange ProVincial Synod (A.D. 529), Canon 2:
“If anyone asserts that Adam’s transgression injured him alone, and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through 1 man into the whole human race, he will do an inJustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: “Through 1 man, sin entered into the world (and, through sin, death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [Romans 5:12].”
Pope BoniFacius II, 2nd Orange ProVincial Synod (A.D. 531), Canon 22:
“Concerning those things which belong to man. No man has anything of his own but unTruth and sin. But, if a man has any Truth or Justice, it is from that Fountain of Grace for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be ReFreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.”
Pope John III, 2nd ProVincial Bragan Synod (A.D. 572), Canon 17:
“Neither the ComMemoration of ObLation not the service of Psalms is to be used for CateChumens who died without Baptism.”
Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst, Morals: Book 21:
“For they even receive eternal torments, who never sinned by their own will. Hence, moreover, it is written: “Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His Sight upon Earth.”. Hence “Truth” Says, by His Own Lips, “unless a man be born of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” [John 3:5].”
Note 1! The “they” are infants who die in original sin.
Note 2! The “receive eternal torments” is suffer in Hell.
Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst, Morals on Job: Book 34, Section 19:
“The Saints pray for their enemies at a time when they are able to convert their hearts to fruitful Penitence. … And this is now the reason for Saintly men not praying for unCreeing men who are already dead; for Saintly men are unwilling that the Merit of their prayers should be set aside in the PreSence of the Just Judge on behalf of them whom they know to already be ConSigned to Eternal PunishMent.”
Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius II (circa A.D. 731):
“You ask advice on the LawFulNess of making offerings for the dead. The Doctrine of the Church is this — that every man should make offerings for them who died as True Christians … but he is not allowed to do so for them who die in a state of mortal sin even if they were Christians.”
To “pray” for either infant or adult dead who died unBaptized or in superstitions under the specious name of “religion” is a denial of the Salvation Dogma!
Pope Saint Agatho, 3rd ConStantinoPolitan Ecumenical Synod (A.D. 680-681):
“we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.”
Pope Adrian I, 2nd Ecumenical Nicene Synod (A.D. 787):
“We also confess the 2 Natures of the One Who Was InCarnate for our sake from the TheoTokos without blemish, Maria, the EverVirgin, recognizing that He Is Immaculate God and immaculate man, as the Chalcedonian Synod also ProClaim.”
The apostates AntiArchBishop AntiDoctor AntiSaint AnSelm of CanterBury and AntiPastor AntiDoctor AntiSaint Thomas Aquinas were both heretics on that point alone which alone proves the apostate AntiPopes “John XXII”, “Urban V”, “Alexander VI”, AntiSaint “Pius V”, “CleMent XI”, “Leo XIII”, and AntiSaint “Pius X” couldn’t’ve ever possibly been Popes nevermind had, among them, Saints!
RE: “It’s [Ibranyis work] all been refuted many times. Unfortunately, you don’t read and study to know that.”
No it hasn’t. You keep saying “this has been refuted; that has been refuted”, but nothing is being refuted, it’s like your own opinion is a “canonical letter” or something. There are canons which explicitly anathematize everyone who allows idols, or who practices immodesty/immodest art. Ibranyi exposed these desecration a while ago, though they were already exposed before him. In saying that, Ibranyi is an apostate for other reasons.
Yes, he’s been refuted many times. He doesn’t even make intelligent arguments.
No he’s never been nor’ll he ever be refuted on these points. You’re not the first one to claim to refute the irrefutable. The Dimonds make such bogus claims on the No JurisDiction Position. Teresa StanFill-“Benns” makes such bogus claims about the Salvation Dogma. What do all their sources have in common? They’re all post-1054. His part 6 of his documentary The Hellenization “of” Christianity by the AntiFathers and the “Scholastics” was all about how apostates like you, Teresa StanFill-“Benns”, Eric Hoyle, Anthony Cekada, Daniel Dolan, Donald SanBorn, et cetera “replaced” the Magisterium “with” yourselves. If his arguments on these points could’ve been refuted, you’d’ve approved Johnny’s comment and addressed it piece by piece.
I did, fool!