CONTACT ME AT:
Steven Speray
PO Box 83
Versailles, KY 40383
Email: catholicwarrior@juno.com
(comments, corrections, criticisms, suggestions, and questions are welcome, and may be posted here on my blog)
The purpose of this website is help people understand the Catholic faith. In order to do this, a defense must be given to the position of sedevacantism and to expose the lies used by the popular so-called Catholic apologists.
Also, I want to expose the lies given by Protestants, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc.
I have observed over the years in all my talks, lectures, speeches, and debates that:
Most people hate or could care less about religion. Out of those, most of them find religion only remotely interesting. The few that actually find religion very interesting, only a few of them find religion as the most important thing in their lives. Out of the few that find religion the most important thing in their lives, very few of these care about how true their religion is. Out of those that care about the truth of their religion as the most important aspect of their lives, most of them will not see the truth because of the difficulty to actually accept it. All this in turn causes more people to hate religion because of the hypocrisy.
Now it is true that what will be presented will be very disturbing to the typical unknowing Catholic. As a matter of fact, when I finally came to the conclusion of what I will present to you, I could not sleep or eat properly for a week. My world was literally flipped upside down and I didn’t know what to do.
So I decided to let all my family and friends know what I had discovered. I also decided to let those whom I respected in the apologetic world on the same details. I found immediately that my newfound position was considered whacko, insane, illogical, and drastically incorrect.
Therefore I challenged them to answer the questions.
In every debate I’ve engaged in, I’ve cornered my opponents, proving them wrong covering every base lock, stock and barrel, and every single time they quit. These opponents include some of the best-known apologists in the world.
The most common reaction is completely dismissing the position of sedevacantism as the new wave of religious fanaticism.
Sedevacantism is the Catholic position that Rome lost the Catholic Faith with an antipope reigning as the true Catholic Church is now underground as the historic Catholic Church and the Bible prophesied. (CHECK OUT THE TOPICS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE AND CLICK ON SEDEVACANTISM AS WELL AS THE TOP OF THIS PAGE “WHY SEDEVACANTISM” AND READ THE WHEN’S, WHAT’S, WHY’S, AND HOW’S ON THE SUBJECT. MY BOOK COVERS IT ALL IN DETAIL)
Even now, I rarely encounter good-willed individuals. One would think that those who claim to love Christ and the His truth would want to know if he were in the wrong religion since doing so would create a false relationship with God. In fact, the opposite is true.
Most of these so-called Christians actually hate Christ and His truth precisely because of the pride they posses. It shouldn’t matter how long one was in error unless he was so filled with pride to admit error.
To be right regardless how wrong one is.
Speaking from personal experience, I attended the Novus Ordo mass 7 days a week for 15 years and defended the Vatican 2 Church giving lectures in high schools; a total of 33 years in the wrong religion, which I thought was the Catholic Church, but is not. Now I reject as valid the very mass that I attended and condemn the very religion I once defended. This is why my life was flipped upside down.
There is no glory, fame or money in following this path. I do it because truth matters and apart from this truth is apart from Christ and ultimately salvation.
On top of all the nonsense coming out of Rome, there is a new wave of religious fervor among Evangelicals and it is spreading like wildfire.
It is no wonder why many non-Christians such as Jewish people and all non-religious have a dislike for Christianity because of the weird televangelists, and the many so-called Christian Evangelicals who all give Christianity a bad name. This includes many of those who hold the very position about to be defended. It is a terrible scandal when Christianity is made to look ridiculous.
However, their form of “Christianity” is really a form of anti-Christianity. Their “Jesus” doesn’t exist since the real Jesus, the Lord of History is found only in historic Christianity not found in the polluted landscape of churches found on every corner and tv programs on every satellite and cable programming.
Their mockery of Christianity is satanic and keeps many people from seeing what historic Christianity is all about. There is only one form of Christianity, not thousands.
Hopefully, this website will help clarify historic Catholicism.
The best way to hide a tree is in a forest. The best way to find this particular tree is knowledge of its type and location.
With this in mind, we’ll now shoot down the forest of defenses, so let’s lock-n-load.
ALSO
My 4 new books are now in print.
Check out Online Self-Publishing Book & Ebook Company | Lulu
Sir:
Take a few more steps to be welcomed into the True Faith outside of which there is no salvation.
To start: add Impious the 12 toyour list of anti-popes.In 1952 he showed himself to be a heretic when hetold the world in apublic address to Italian midwives that it was permissible to practice birth prevention via the rhythm method.
Viva Cristo Rey Tom by grace of God a true Catholic
Tom,
YOu stated: (Sir: Take a few more steps to be welcomed into the True Faith outside of which there is no salvation. To start: add Impious the 12 to your list of anti-popes.In 1952 he showed himself to be a heretic when he told the world in a public address to Italian midwives that it was permissible to practice birth prevention via the rhythm method.)
Should I add Pius XI also since he stated: 59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Pius XI would not have made the last sentence in Casti Connubi if he wasn’t implying the conjugal act may be performed in the time of sterility since to be subordinated to the primary end already implies such a case.
It would appear to me that Pius XII was clear that the conjugal act could be used in times of sterility provided the primary end is not frustrated, and only for grave purposes since there are other secondary ends that need to be considered.
However, even if Pius XII is wrong, he would not be considered a formal heretic. You must show me that teaching (which comes from either the universal and ordinary magisterium or extraordinary mag.) that states that the conjugal act cannot be performed during times of sterility under grave reasons.
The difference between Pius error and John through Benedict’s is that John through Benedict know what the Church teaches and go against it unlike Pius XII. Pius would be a material heretic at best. We see this with John XXII who made a dreadful mistake in his theology during one his sermons
Thanks for reading,
Steven
Tom –
“Pius XII”, “Pius XI”, and “Benedict XV”
had a great many heresies in their “encyclicals”.
Please see Section 20, 20.1, and 20.2 of my site at:
Immaculata-one.com
SPERAY REPLIES: I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. YOU PUT WORDS IN THE MOUTHS OF ALL THE VERSES YOU QUOTE FROM THESE POPES. YOU COMPLETELY MANGLE ALL OF THEM.
SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS:
YOU QUOTE POPE BENEDICT XV: Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, Para 21:
“We humbly implore the Holy Ghost the Paraclete that He may graciously grant to the Church the gifts of unity and peace.”
AND STATE OF THIS: [Catholic note: “Benedict XV” is saying the exact opposite of this dogmatic decree by stating that the Church still “needs the gift of unity” when this decree clearly states that the Church is already “One”. The soul damning strategy here is to make heretics think they are in the Church when they are not, they are in heretic meeting halls and headed for Hell. This is also a way for the wicked and vicious Benedict XV to make heretics (“lutherans”, “methodists”, “baptists”, etc) think they are Christians when only Catholics are Christians.]
SPERAY RESPONDS: IF YOU READ THE WHOLE OF BENEDICT, YOU WILL SEE THAT HE DOESN’T MEAN UNITY IN THE SENSE THAT YOU THINK. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ONE AND UNIFIED IN THE DOGMAS OF THE FAITH, BUT IT IS NOT UNIFIED IN ALL THINGS THAT LEAD TO PEACE. THE CHURCH HAS FOUGHT WITH ONE ANOTHER ALL THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES FOR POLITICAL GAINS, SOCIAL GAINS, ETC. POWER AND MONEY HAS CAUSED DIVISION WITHIN THE CHURCH.
THEREFORE, YOU GOT THIS ONE TOTALLY WRONG.
YOU QUOTE: “Benedict XV” in
Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Para 1:
“For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom, and there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption.”
AND STATE OF THIS: [Catholic note: “Benedict-XV” is heretically saying exactly the opposite of this dogmatic decree. The redemption (the re-opening of Heaven) does not apply to anyone outside of the Catholic Church. God re-opened Heaven in one prescribed way, the Catholic Faith, He didn’t re-open Heaven via the heretic groups (“lutheran”, “methodist”, “baptist”, etc.) or via the pagan groups (“jew”, “mohammaden”, “buddhist”, etc.)]
SPERAY RESPONDS: YOU ARE TEACHING THE HERESY NOW, SINCE THE GATES OF HEAVEN ARE OPENED TO ALL MEN, NOT JUST CATHOLICS. THIS DOESN’T MEAN THAT ALL WILL GO TO HEAVEN. CHRIST REDEEMED THE WHOLE WORLD NOT JUST THE FUTURE CATHOLICS.
ROM 5: [12] Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -[18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
2 COR 5:[15] And he died for all,
I TIM 2:[6] who gave himself as a ransom for all,
JOHN 12:[32] and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” NO POINT TO DO THIS IF HE DIDN’T DIE FOR ALL.
TITUS 2:[11] For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,
I JOHN 2: [2] and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
THEREFORE, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT BENEDICT AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH. THE GATES ARE OPENED TO ALL MEN MEANING GOD REDEEMED THE WHOLE WORLD. ONLY CATHOLICS CAN BE SAVED BUT THE REDEMPTION WAS FOR ALL.
YOU QUOTE: “Benedict XV” in
Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, Para 4 :
“The Christian life, which consists essentially in charity and the preaching of which is called the Gospel of peace.”
AND RESPOND TO IT: [Catholic note: “Benedict XV” violates the above dogmatic decree by stating that “Christian life is essentially charity and the Gospel of peace”. The Christian life is not even attained except through water baptism. One is not “essentially Christian” by doing charity or teaching peace.]
SPERAY RESPONDS: BENEDICT DIDN’T SAY THAT THE CHRISTIAN LIFE COMES APART FROM BAPTISM NOR IMPLIES IT. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE DOCUMENT YOU WILL SEE THAT HE ALREADY PRESUMES IT.
THEREFORE, HE IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE INDEED CONSISTS OF CHARITY AND THE LIVING AND PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL.
I HAVE NOT BEGUN TO GO TO THE OTHER POPES THAT YOU SLANDER, BUT I HAVE SPENT ENOUGH TIME HERE TO SHOW YOU AND THE REST OF MY AUDIENCE WHY THEY SHOULD AVOID YOUR NONSENSE LIKE THE PLAGUE!
I MEAN THIS WITH ALL SINCERITY, YOU GIVE CATHOLICS A BAD NAME!
I WILL HOWEVER GO THROUGH ALL YOUR OTHER MISREPRESENTATIONS AND EXPOSE IT WHEN I GET MORE TIME. RIGHT NOW, I’M WORKING ON MY 6TH BOOK.
I COULD DO THE SAME THING WITH LEO XIII AND ST PIUS X THAT YOU DID WITH BENEDICT AND THE 2 PIUS’, AND IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT YOU TAKE THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AND PLACE IT OUT IN THE ALREADY CONFUSING WORLD!
YOU JUST ADDED TO THE CONFUSION.
SPERAY
These are the three that set up the V-2 apostasy,
they had 50 years to put their apostates in place.
The V-2 “council” was simply an event to get the
approval signatures for a revolt that had already
taken place.
That God disposed the will of J-23 to have a “council”
was a grace to the world so that we could recognize
that the episcopal offices were extinct through
automatic excommunication (Section 75 of my site).
Mike
Our Lady of Conquest
Pray for us
Thank you, Mr. Brophy,
I think you may be getting warm.
Robert Gregory.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope, not even close!
Sir:
Quick Question. Do you practice birth prevention in your own marriage?
Sincerely, Thomas Brophy
Tom,
Absolutely not! This has no bearing on the question since such conditions do not exist for me.
Do you practice the conjugal act during times of infertility even though not trying to prevent childbirth? If so, then the act would not be primarily for procreation but for secondary reasons.
Would it be wrong to practice the act completely naturally during times of fertility and “hope” that procreation does not happen?
Whatever you answer to this question, I have already proven from my first response that Pope Pius XII is a true pope whether right or wrong. This was the point in posting the comments.
All you must do is accept it and admit your error.
Steven
Sorry, Mr. Speray,
You have more ground to travel before you find the whole truth. Pius XII was not a pope. He was part of the antichrist machine.
I know that is good by, so good luck!
Robert Gregory.
P. S. Brace yourself and read a) The New Montinian Church and b) The Undermining of the Church, if you have the guts.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have two copies of The New Montinian Church. Read them several times. I have the whole truth but you are in error when you say Pius XII is not pope. Now if you have the guts, lay down one point that demonstrates Pius XII was not pope. So far, Brophy’s explanation necessarily condemns Pius XI as well. His argument is terribly flawed as I’ve shown.
Steven,
Certainly, I would admit any error of mine if I could only understand your accusation.
Are you trying to defend the birth prevention allowed by the heretic known as Pius 12?
Did God decide sometime in the early 1900’s that He had been unreasonable by commanding us to multiply and fill the earth?
Are the Prots correct in saying that Catholics will believe anything the Pope tells them? Did not the token opposition to the rhythm method cease with P12’s 1952 betrayal rubber stamping of the infamous rhythm birth control taught by false Catholics in publications dating back to the 1920’s. (I’m old enough to remember that it was widespread knowledge even among the Americanist psuedo-Catholic children of the 1940’s. Of the several hundred families of our parish, there were only two large families: one Polish- the other Austrian.)
God says one thing, heretics say “too difficult!” and by their words and actions show themselves to be enemies of God. Can one of these non-Catholics be a pope?
Redeemed by His Precious Blood, Thomas Brophy
Tom,
I’m trying to show you that Pius XII is a true pope regardless of his stance since being wrong on this question would not automatically make him a formal heretic.
You must show me that teaching (which comes from either the universal and ordinary magisterium or extraordinary mag.) that states that the conjugal act cannot be performed during times of sterility to avoid pregnancy under grave reasons.
If you can’t do so, then your accusation against is Pope Pius XII is false.
You also did not answer my other questions.
Please answer the questions. If you don’t then I will presume that you cannot deal with the topic honestly.
As for your questions, the call to multiply the earth has no bearing on the question since it would not necessarily apply in all instances. The reasons given by Popes Pius XI and XII say why.
The Protestants are right that Catholics are to believe in all teachings from the pope that flow from either the universal ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. Catholics are not bound to believe everything but again you didn’t show me that official teaching I asked for.
Non-Catholics cannot be popes but you have not proven Pius XII to be a formal heretic. Popes can and have been material heretics and that is the best your going to be able to do with Pius XII.
So admit your error or prove me wrong with that official teaching.
Steven
What excellent zeal resides in your heart!
To find passion in an individual is refreshing to me in this age of indiference.
Permit me to say that I am reminded of the Apostle Paul who fervently persecuted the early Christians, firmly convinced he was doing the will of God.
When the “Light” broke through…well you know the rest.
You have very much impressed me.
I think we would enjoy a dialogue after you have read the book I published through lulu press.
It is entitiled:
The Beehive of the Romish Church
Should you be so inclined, please contact me and perhaps we can get together sometime.
Until then,
http://www.countdownto2070.com
I sent you an e-mail but your mailbox is full. If you want the writings of sedevacantist Dr Cyril Andrade (97) of Bangalore, India, for your archive, I can send them to you.
Thank you! Please try my mail again.
Nestor-hello, may I also be sent the writings of Dr.Cyril Andrade on his sedevacantist position Thank you, Mr. Joseph Mecca jwm2146@verizon.net
So, Mr. Speray, according to your version of Sedevacantism, how will the Church once again come upon a Pope, if she ever does?
Buy my books and find out.
It’s not at all problematic theologically. In fact, long before the mess started in 1958, several Church approved theologians have given the answer to this question with the presumption that it could and will happen.
What is problematic theologically is having non-Catholics as popes as the last 5 claimants have been. The gates of hell cannot be popes, therefore, it is either sedevacantism or the promise of Christ failed. You have no other choice.
Now whether the Church actually has another pope before Christ’s return is another question. I give an answer in my book, The Key to the Apocalypse.
Well, I’m not about to support a cause of which I do not adhere to; and I’d be doing so by buying one of your books.
So, being that you haven’t really answered my question, and I don’t really desire to search through everything you’ve ever written in this blog, I guess I’m out of luck then?
You are wrong that buying my books supports my cause. It supports my family.
I don’t support artificial contraception, but literally every where I shop for food and gas sells it.
I don’t support planned parenthood, but many parent companies that we buy from do.
I don’t support Ignatius Press, but I wouldn’t hesitate a second to buy a book or video from them if I wanted to find some information.
I don’t support Benedict XVI one iota, but would buy his book if I wanted to find out what he teaches here or there.
But I’ll make it very simple for you and answer your question.
All the valid bishops that are left could make that decision. However, all doubt would have to be removed so that the faithful could positively know that the decision was valid.
Fair enough, though it’s not something I really want to spend my money on.
Pertaining to your answer to my original question: can you supply me with a list of those ‘valid’ bishops. Also, can you tell me the criterion used to arrive at this conclusion concerning each bishop’s validity?
May I ask to what Church you belong so that I have a heads up to whom I’m writing? I will presume that you believe Rabbi Ratzinger is the pope or else these questions wouldn’t really matter to you, though I could be wrong.
To answer your questions…Yes, I can supply a list of bishops but I will not do so unless you are a Catholic (and I know you), and yes, I can give the criteria, and you can find it at the Council of Florence, with specifics given by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII.
Why ask these questions, if you’re not willing to spend a little money on books that give most, if not all, the answers? Why should I sit here and answer your questions when I have already spent countless hours putting the info in books precisely so that I wouldn’t have to answer them again and again?
It sounds like you’re not really interested and that you’re using me to satisfy your curiosity. Your mind is already made up, perhaps?
So, you wantt oconvert Protestants, then turn around and tell them that the Catholic house is messed up, only a scattered few are true Catholics and then top off that sudae with “oh by the way, we have had no Pope in 54 yrs”……yup, that will bring them in!! No need to sugar coat nor lie to them, but likely your gloomy “against” outlook wont convert anyone……….
You missed the point. What you consider the Catholic house is not the Catholic house. I’ve actually been more successful bringing in Protestants than Vat2-ites. You’re right, though. I don’t sugar coat it and tell him up front what’s up.
Its easy to convert sheeple with lies. “Wide is the gate to destruction…” There’s a pied piper for every flavour. The Truth is the same “yesterday and today and forever” and “few there are that find it”.
Mr. Speray,
I came across this site while trying to track down “Father” Collins and Robert Siscoe to respond to the content of the CDs I had recently reviewed. Imagine my surprise when I found that someone else had fired the first salvo – and doing so more effectively than I could ever hope to do. Keep up the good work! May God bless you, and Mary keep you.
You site is very, very confusing and I would not recommend to any Roman Catholic, it looks like you are a Sedevacantism and this is schism or heresy from the Roman Catholic Church, I believe that anyone that wants answers and or questions regarding anything Roman Catholic and or buying Catholic books should go to EWTN.com Your site is leading many Catholics into error!!!
SPERAY REPLIES: I tell you up front that I’m defending the position of sedevacantism. I challenge you to explain how it’s schismatic or heretical based on the teachings and laws of the Catholic Church. The best of the Vatican 2 defenders haven’t even come close, but they have shown why Vatican 2 and the conciliar popes are the very antithesis of Catholicism. Your comment shows me that you have already given yourself to modernism and anti-catholicism without question.
EWTN???? LOL! I have run out of energy trying to talk with my novus ordo family.They will find any excuse to worship Satan at the local pagan novus ordo temple. (Most of my family are glorified atheists,just a few attend the jewish pagan meal service once or twice a month )
Thank you for your comments, I did not expect less, God have mercy of your soul!
SPERAY REPLIES: I see that you couldn’t answer the questions that I emailed personally to you. I guess you believe that a pope can manifestly reject the Divine law and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which, of course, means that you reject the Divine Law and the teachings of the Catholic Church as well. May God have mercy on your soul!
The Fundemental error of Fr. Feeney is the denial of the 18th canon of Session 6 (Trent). Though he believed a person could be justified by desire, he claimed that the same person, i.e. catechumen could not stay justified one day, and 3 days would be impossible. This is Jansenism. Justification+perseverance=Salvation
Fr. Feeney just could not seem to understand this
I studied Fr. Feeney’s work closely. He denied the implication of justification under certain circumstances. The issue is at death. Perseverance wouldn’t necessarily apply here.
He taught that a man could die justified, but without the sacrament of baptism, that man wouldn’t go to heaven, nor would he go to hell. When asked where would the man go, he simply replied “I don’t know.” In other words, he believed a man could die justified and not enjoy the Beatific Vision.
Sounds like a novelty spin off of infant death before baptism. St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus disagree with Fr. Feeney.
Hello,
My name is Paula, wife to Paul.. We are Sede-Vacantist’s also.. It is interesting stumbling upon your blog. I’ve read a few things, and agree heartily with most of it. You sound like a gentleman who is after the heart of God! Which is a rare find indeed. Actually, we know very few real Catholics.. Do you avoid all so called Catholic Church’s, even the SSPX, or the CMRI? I have not been able to find a way to contact you other than leaving a comment. Is there another way?? I don’t see a way to email or anything. My husband is also a talented writer and very fervent Catholic. This is his website: theepistemologicworks.com .. I hope to talk more with you in the future. May the One Holy Triune Catholic God Bless you!
You may email me at: catholicwarrior@juno.com
Ever heard of St.John the Baptist Catholic Church 452 N.26th Louisville,KY? Pre-1950 mass,valid priest (pre-1968 holy orders consecrated by bishop with pre-1968 holy orders)
Sacraments pre-vatican 2.
Sunday 10am – rosary Latin 15 decade/confession 8:30
Saturday 8:30am confession 8:15am
Mon-Fri 7:30am confession 7:155
Anthony, please email as you soon as you can. Thank you!
Mr. Speray is your fervor the result of a personal miracle or is your faith a result of study and prayer or all the above.
When I was young, proud, and ignorant I was challenged by a Protestant minister and had no answer. It bothered me greatly. I began to study and learn all about the Faith and everybody else’s religion. In my studies I found out that I was in the wrong religion and it shook me up again. The more I learned the more interested I became. I continue to learn and hopefully will have better answers for some of the tougher questions. I can’t really take any credit, though. God gives the grace. The Church provides the answers. Men have provided much of the info. I’m just stumbling through it and sharing the experience. Now I’m older, not as proud, and still ignorant about many things.
Knowledge is one thing, holiness is another. My children are far holier than I. Holiness is what gets us to heaven. The devil has lots of knowledge and you see where he is at.
Oh I get the point brother… its your (not even yours, but the papists in general) nonsensical explanation I do not agree with. Please define “Canon” and show how “the NT did not exist” prior to St. Athanasius. And I’ll show you how absurd this idea is again.
The heterodox idea that “doctrine changes and develops over time” is a complete ruse, twisting the occasional need to define against heresy into, “we can change stuff whenever we want to as long as the “pope” says its ok”. Now you go to councils but show me where a council has changed any doctrine that was not a definition against a heresy, but an actual innovation such as the so-called “immaculate conception” and I’ll show you… wait, it doesn’t exist.
We’ve already established that there are saints who speculated about many things that are not doctrine… Its a waste of time going into what we think your quoted saint meant by this exactly… the fact is, the doctrine was not required for believe amongst the faithful for 1800’s years, then SUDDENLY BAM! Believe it or burn forever! NEW… NOVEL… NOT ALWAYS BELIEVED.
This CHANGE of what MUST be believed is IMPOSSIBLE in an INDEFECTABLE Church. (Caps for emphasis, not raised voice as some use this for…)
Peace and glory in Christ Jesus, and may He have mercy on us blind sinners.
Canon I’m speaking of is the list of NT books. There are many books thought to be inspired but are not and vice versa. The Canon that we have today was first arranged by St. Athanasius. THAT’S A FACT! The Catholic Church was the one that ratified it and you accept it. THAT’S A FACT!
I didn’t say doctrine changes. You’re like the liberal that twists everything I say. It develops and your religion understands that fact because that’s how we got those doctrines that I laid out in a previous reply to you.
Back when I was Novus Ordo, I visited an Eastern Orthodox church several times. In the liturgy, Our Lady was referred as immaculate over and over again. I asked the priest (ex-Catholic now Eastern Orthodox) about it, and he went on how they don’t believe that Our Lady was really immaculate. I thought that was curious.
A CHANGE of what MUST be believed is IMPOSSIBLE in an INDEFECTABLE Church? You just condemned Christianity because the Canon of the NT would qualify what you call a change since before it was defined you didn’t have to believe all of the 27 books were the Inspired Word of God. In fact, most Christians didn’t even know what all the books were until the Church defined them. No one in the East had the 27 books until St. Athanasius.
I can provide you with Eastern saints who didn’t believe the eternity of hell. Do you hold in your religion that you don’t have to believe that hell is eternal? Curious?
Sedevacantism makes a lot of sense only if the Western church was the proper Apostolic Church, following faithfully the traditions of the apostles without any aberration. This is not the case however and Rome has proven over and over again that Orthodoxy is the True Church not RC. Sadly, many Sedevacantists are really closet Orthodox, they just don’t know it.
Sure Rome has a song and a dance for all its invented doctrines (even prior to Vatican II) but they’re just that… a song and a dance. The contradictions of absurdity pile upon themselves if you take a stroll through history.
Orthodoxy has its own problems… modernists, freemasons, disagreements, overlapping jurisdictions, however an authoritative and tyrannical series of antichrist/anti-pope usurpers is not one of them. Come on home brother to the True Traditions of the Apostles. There’s plenty of room.
The RC has not invented doctrines unless you’re ready to say the Orthodox have done so, too. I believe in the papacy and all the doctrines surrounding it. Even the East recognized the Pope as the head of the Church for the first 1000 years.
Recognizing the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the ancient Western Orthodox (Roman) Church is not the same thing as recognizing him as the Sole authority in the entire Universal Church. Your statement is inaccurate brother. The Roman Church recognized the Bishops of the other 4 mother Churches as well (Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem).
Speray replies: Of course the Church recognizes the other as you call “mother” churches. They are all one Church, but the Holy See was recognized by the other 4 as supreme. The Eastern Fathers testify to Peter’s Primacy. For instance: St. Clement of Alexandria writes: “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian: “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Western Invented doctrine, condemned by all other Mother Churches:
1. Filioque 700ish AD, (condemned also by a western “pope” i.e. Bishop of Rome, before the Franks got their own “pope” to push this novelty into Rome itself… )
Speray replies: What pope condemned the Filioque? I think you can justify the doctrine from the Bible. The West didn’t invent it. It was the East that invented that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son because you won’t find that teaching anywhere except from the opinions from those in the East. The Bible sure doesn’t say it.
2. Immaculate Conception 1800s (Denied and argued against by the father of western scholasticism “st.” Thomas Aquinas… shouldn’t that make him “anathema”?)
Speray Replies: My friend, you’re sadly mistaken. St. Thomas condemned 6 false versions of the Immaculate Conception and it was his teaching that Pope Pius IX used to define the 7th true version. Again, it’s in the Bible and it was an Eastern Father, St. Ephraim, who we see teaching it the earliest!
3. Papal Infallibility 1800s( Putting a human man above Christ, the God-man, above tradition and scripture… as long as you follow the “pope” you are “catholic”, but follow the traditions of the apostles WITHOUT the new western inventions and it is ANATHEMA SIT to the real traditionalists… the Orthodox.)
Speray Replies: You need to do your homework. Papal infallibility is not putting man above Christ. In fact, it just the other way around. Christ keeps the pope at bay with it. Lol. And again, it can be justified scripturally.
See the writings of the great Father of the Church St. Vincent of Lerins “The Commonitorium” where he shreds the novelties of his day and gives the NEAR infallible yard stick of Tradition. “What was always taught?” & “If you are unsure about a doctrine, go back to our fathers… if it is not taught by them, do away with it and do what your fathers did, for what saved then will still save now” (paraphrased)
Speray replies: Remember what I said, I can show how your religion invented doctrines, too, (if you’re going to argue in this manner) as with the denial of the Filioque. You should know that doctrine develops. St. Vincent is talking about novelties that contradict doctrines.
There are many more contradictions in the western heterodox church my friend, but an argument rarely goes anywhere. Look into the early Church and the claims of an Autocratic “papacy” become absurd… you have to get back before Trent to see the real damaging evidence against the RC claims, also the writings of the Fathers… not the cherry picked ones, but full sermons.
Speray replies: I know that they’re are no contradictions. You actually misrepresented the facts on the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility. But I hope that you will take the time and really understand what we’re saying rather than the usual straw-men antiCatholic arguments.
Reading the Gospels, the Fathers and early (prior to 1054AD) commentaries on the Gospels like (Blessed Theophylact pre Schism)… trying to live out the Gospel in daily life and a lot of prayer, repentance and sorrow over sins brings grace and without grace it is very difficult to see the Truth. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” (Jesus Christ)
Speray replies: The Eastern Fathers are Awesome! You won’t get any argument from me about that. I even like many of the Eastern traditions over the Western ones.
May the Almighty and Everlasting God, our Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us blind sinners and lead us to glorify Him in His Kingdom.
Speray replies: Amen!
I left my comments in each point that you made above.
Cherry picked quotes and lopsided “history” make for a shaky house of cards my friend. You point a finger at my “lack of homework” but there are several fingers pointing back at you accusing the same.
The one about “st.” Thomas is the flimsiest song and a dance I’ve ever heard on the subject. Have you actually read his discourse in the Summa?
Your position is a hard one. All your sources are tainted with a thousand year old agenda of error and justifications of usurpaiton.
When you look for your own answers and do the actual research you will be faced with some difficult facts. God be with you and heal you of your blindness. Lord have mercy on us blind sinners.
Cherry picked? That’s your comeback? I gave solid factual answers and you give me opinions.
Yes, I’ve read the Summa but apparently you have not. He doesn’t condemn the Immaculate Conception as it was defined. If you did your homework, you would have found out how POpe Pius IX used St. Thomas. But you would rather make a mockery of my explanation rather than taking a look it. This tells me that you’re not really interested in hearing the truth.
You should have used St. John Chrysostom. He didn’t believe it.
So far you’ve not given one “difficult” fact. Want to try again?
You read an article posted on NOW and now your an expert in “st” Thomas’s so-called sort of denial and argumentation against the novel doctrine of “immaculate conception”? Nope. Not even the pre-vat2 Romans backed this flimsy article. I have read PP9ths definition and so what? Its new. As in… the day before the definition it was not required to believe in this NEW doctrine, and the day after you became a non-Catholic if you did not start believing in it. This should be impossible in an indefectable Church. Your church is not indefectable as the criteria for membership continues to change over time.
Also, if “st” Thomas were alive today and held to his stance against this novel doctrine, he would no longer be Catholic
Try again? Why?… your quotes prove nothing… it requires the incorrect perspective of papism to see these statements as backing anything. There are 50 more that directly appose these cherry picked quotes. Do your own homework. I didn’t come to school you nor to debate you, only to make you aware that you don’t know what you are talking about and you are relying on the research of those who are already in delusion and are following half truths. Riding on the back of half truths gets you into fractional pieces of truth, but not to the TRUTH.
You can do it… you’re ability to research is there and the info is all over the net now days. Do some digging…. some digging that isn’t spoon fed by papism.
God be with you and may He bless us and have mercy on us blind sinners who are seeking the TRUTH!
Well, you got something right. Before something is defined, it wouldn’t be a dogma and perhaps not binding. I already gave you St. Chrysostom who I told you didn’t believe it. However, you completely misunderstand indefectibility and how it all works. And that’s understandable for a non-Catholic like yourself. As you should know, doctrine develops. You have doctrines that have developed, too. Just look at the Bible itself. I know a non-Christian who would say to you the Bible is novel. It didn’t exist for the first 300 plus years. Your religion just invents what it wants, etc. etc. like you’re doing to me.
As for the Immaculate Conception, it’s not a novel doctrine. Saints, such as the Eastern Father St. Ephraim proclaimed that Our Lady had no stains or blemish. I deny your claim about Aquinas but that’s okay because again, I already know that it was not held by everybody. That’s why the pope defined it.
As for my quotes, they prove a lot! And they are from the East. Can you provide just a couple of quotes from saints that contradict the ones I provided? And I go through each of them for you. I submit the papacy was held by all from the beginning.
I could say the same thing to you that, “you don’t know what you are talking about and you are relying on the research of those who are already in delusion and are following half truths. Riding on the back of half truths gets you into fractional pieces of truth, but not to the TRUTH.”
We don’t have to debate, etc. But I would love to discus this further perhaps on a smaller scale one point at a time.
(Sigh) this is a waste of time. No matter how many times I correct your errors “one at a time” you will have a new song and a dance to explain it away. This is because you’ve already made your decision… you already believe what you believe. I understand it, but it sucks because you are wrong and I have no idea how to communicate it to you myself.
You want one at a time. Here…
YOU: “I think you can justify the doctrine from the Bible. (filioque) The West didn’t invent it. It was the East that invented that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son because you won’t find that teaching anywhere except from the opinions from those in the East. The Bible sure doesn’t say it.”
ME: Absurd and incorrect statement brother… “[26] But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who *proceedeth* from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”(John 15:26 Douay version)
Now that’s directly from “scripture” and it was part of the UNIVERSAL i.e. EAST AND WEST Nicene Creed “and in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father… full stop!… no “and the Son” before the Franks decided to add novelty (filioque) to their Creed and later tried to force everyone else to do the same. NEW, as in… not always believed.
Speray replies: We all know and agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, it’s an invention that He doesn’t proceed from the Son. That’s the point! Go read how early Church taught how the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. There are many quotes. Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from “the Father through the Son,” which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula “from the Father and the Son.”
Your statement about scripture being novel is also absurd. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the even more ancient original Hebrew OT… Greek quoted by Chrirst Himself by the way) precedes the birth of Christ by hundreds of years, and the books of the NT were written based on the Apostolic teachings of Christ that were already Universally practised. They didn’t erupt into existence 300 plus years later as “novel doctrine”, this idea displays a total ignorance of the origins of scripture.
Speray replies: You completely misunderstood! The NT Canon didn’t exist until St. Athanasius gave it to us. It wasn’t fully accepted until the Council of Rome in 380. I said Bible, not Scripture. And guess what? Early Church thought non-biblical writings were Scripture.
This kind of argumentation brings many things into a modernistic flexibility… this changed so that can change… the “pope” says so and its now to be so or ELSE ANATHEMA! Believe this new teaching… and its not NEW because the “pope” says its not… but you didn’t have to believe it yesterday to be Catholic, now you do. Believe or burn… go! Nonsense. I have a FULL understanding of what indefectable is. You seem to have a very confused and contradictory understanding of what it means. This is because you’ve already drank the papist koolaid and its hard to un-see the error… the “beam”… so you “strain the gnat and swallow the camel”. Not just you brother, but all papists have this same contradiction that they have to live with… most ignore it, others explain it away with a tapdance routine. Either way its not the truth.
Speray replies: You just proved that you still don’t understand. Please read the Catholic Church definition before giving your erroneous opinion about it.
Again, back and forth so-called debate is a waste of time. You have to do your own REAL research, NOT go back and forth with someone online and not read a bunch of slanted, propaganda sophisms put into article form to push one nonsensical idea or another trying to explain away contradictions and absurdities.
Lord have mercy on us blind sinners and lead us to your TRUTH!
I’ve inserted comments to yours. Sorry brother, but you’re not getting it. You’re twisting what I’m saying and there’s no reason for it except that you just don’t want to understand. We can discuss point by point. But you’re getting agitated because you see that there is a logical answer to your false accusations. Will you discuss one point at a time? We can start with the Canon of Scripture.
I am not bound by the “definitions” of your sectarian church. I understand the meaning of the words you (and your kind, i.e. Western Papism) simply fail to follow these meanings properly.
Just because it is possible to articulate an Orthodox explanation for the aberration of the so-called filioque does not make it lawful to push upon the whole Christian world without the act of conciliar agreement. It can also be argued from just as many, if not more patristic sources AGAINST this interpretation. Thus the problem with NEW DOCTRINE… it divides and leads to arguments and sophisms as you are doing now. Sophistry on steroids is the Western Roman way.
I misunderstood nothing, your statement is still ridiculous. The NT did in fact exist before St. Athanasius. More nonsense.
So the tapdance of sophistry continues and we get nowhere, one at a time. We haven’t even got to the fun stuff yet and you’re hung up on nonsense. This is why communication is impossible. You don’t care about the TRUTH, you care about being right… about papism and about being a sede. The sad thing is… sede’s are holding high the banner of so-called “tradition” against novelty and distortions of the Novus Ordo sect and modernism, etc… but the hypocritical tragedy is that you hold to novelties and distortions that are simply older than Vatican2 and older than Protestantism even. So the Novus Ordo is just too new of a novelty for you. Like “traditional” Protestants who are not yet comfortable with women “priests” and gay marriage (give it time, they will probably cave just like everyone else on a long enough time line.)
My frustration is not with you brother… but your/our situation. The enemy of mankind has blinded us all and we are in a difficult position… how to remove the beam from our own eyes???
Lord have mercy on us blind sinners.
There was no NT canon as we have it today until St. Athanasius. You gave me nothing but your opinions which are wrong. Even the Orthodox religions believe in the first several Ecumenical Councils and the definitions they laid out. The only thing that’s ridiculous are your comments which have no substance. There are literally thousands of people like you that can’t back up anything they say. Again, you’re afraid to go point by point because you’ll be proven wrong. You have nothing, not even quotes that I asked for.
Your quotes are meaningless and your statements are false. The NT did exist, every single book BEFORE St. Athanasius. Defining something does not bring it into existence. More absurd statements.
I can “back it up” but you don’t care. You can’t bully your way to the Truth with absurdities. You sound like a Protestant, cherry pick and stand firm in nonsense.
Lets analyse one of your silly quotes. Pick an Eastern father on the so-called “immaculate conception” again… “no stains or blemish”… where’s the quote? What is the context? What is the work it is quoted from? You have nothing but “st, so and so said… ‘blah blah immaculate conception'” this is garbage and you know it. But just to show how meaningless it is, you go on to say that St. John Chrysostom (one of the greatest saints in history) did not believe in this novel doctrine. So it doesn’t matter what saint you pull up of old that spoke in a way that seems to back your novelty… the fact is it was not universally believed and is therefore NEW and a CHANGE and a direct assault on Indefectability. Contradiction… not opinion, but uncomfortable fact ignored by the papist sect.
You are irritated because I refuse to follow your twisted logic and sectarian explanations. But brother, arguing will lead nowhere. You have to dig for yourself and read the fathers YOURSELF, not some writings about it and cherry picked quotes from papists. You won’t listen to me… why would you? You have hundreds of years worth of sectarians to listen to.
May the Almighty and Everlasting God heal us of our blindness and have mercy on us.
No, the NT Canon did not exist before St. Athanasius. Yes, the books existed but not the canon and that’s the point you seem not to get. In fact, your religion, like mine, accepts teachings from councils such as Incarnation, hypostatic union, Christ has two natures, two wills, etc. Protestants argue just like you do on points. You’re actually condemning your own religion and you don’t see it. Lol.
As for St. Ephraim’s quote, “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]). There’s the context and source.
It’s common knowledge that not all saints held to every point throughout history before the definitions. I could give you examples of doctrines from saints that you and I don’t agree with because our religions don’t agree with them.
(Sigh) Unbelievabe… Show me one anathema for a 400’s AD Christian “not believing in one of the 27 books”. There isn’t one. The Canon’s were not defined all at once, but agreed upon by most of the Bishops with aberations over many generations tolerated all over. Conciliar, authoritative definition came later still and even that was not strictly enforced in the way you papists seem to think is appropriate. St. Athanasius and his list is not a council, and defining what books are Divinely inspired is not the same thing as demanding that the faithful believe in a new NOVEL doctrine that was not required for belief by the Apostles.
You are so blinded by your idea that definitions can change and that Indefectability is really defined as “changeable when its done right” that you’ve thrown logic and reason right out the window to hold on to your sectarian beliefs. This is exactly what Liberals, Modernists and Protestants do.
Papism… the first Protestant sect… blind, absurd and sad. There’s nothing to win here brother. As I’ve said, you can’t find the Truth by winning an argument. Sometimes when you win (or think you’ve won), you really lose. You are losing the Truth.
God be with you, and may He heal our blindness and have mercy on us sinners.
I can say the same about you…you’re blinded, you’re a sect, etc. etc. but that doesn’t get us anywhere.
Does your religion hold that you don’t have to believe in the Bible as the Inspired Word of God?
I will not post your comment if you don’t answer the question and/or go beyond the question because my blog will not be used as a platform for anti-catholicism. I don’t want to hear anything else but an simple answer to my question and we will go from there. It’s the only we’re going to get anywhere.
Please forgive me for my arrogant words brother. Argumentation is a path to sin, not a path to healing. I do not possess the virtue to help you and my sins weigh heavily upon me. I respect the portion of Orthodoxy you hold to despite the whole world turning towards the evils of Modernism, Pantheism and Subjectivism. Papism is its own dangerous heterodoxy, but its not for me to teach you as I cannot do so without falling into sin myself. I will pray for your soul and I humbly ask that you pray for mine.
God be with you and may He have mercy on us sinners.
You have it all wrong brother… my sins and my blindness are much greater than yours and far less excusable. I agree our ability to communicate is severely hindered, but I disagree that 1000 years ago had much to do with bad communication. Resistance by all other Mother Churches to the attempted usurpation of authority by the West yes, communication… not so much, although it could have been a factor, though it really doesn’t matter at this point.
Speray replies: The Eastern Church recognized the supremacy of the West. I provided quotes that demonstrate that fact. There are others, too. Cyprian of Carthage: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
In 96 AD. we have Pope St. Clement responding to a petition from the Church at Corinth to settle a dispute. Why?
We have Pope St. Leo being recognized by the East as the Head of the Church…read https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/wonderful-leo
Don’t you find it strange that out of FIVE original Churches, ONE decided to be boss and the other FOUR said “no thanks, that’s not how its been done for the last 1000 years”… then the West… all by itself said “FINE! I’ll take my toys and go home! Anathema to you!”
Speray replies: What I find strange is the 4 others once recognized Rome as supreme and then stopped after 900 plus years.
Of course this is a sarcastic oversimplification, but the spirit is the same… One broke away from the ROOT of Orthodoxy and then went on to splinter into 50,000 different sectarian “denominations”, filling the world with Papism, Protestantism, Modernism, Communism, Liberalism, Freemasonry, Atheism, Deism, (insert ism here that came from the fractionalization of the West)… these things came out of the Western split, not from the East.
Speray replies: The East split nationally with no real unity after they rejected Rome. The devil attacks the true religion with the isms. The devil already has the Orthodox religion.
Error begets error, schism begets schism and the West is a perfect living example of this development.
God be with you, and may He have mercy on us blind sinners!
PS. Defining the books of the NT which are inspired by God vs those not, had nothing to do with what “must be believed to be Christian”. The heirarchy worked to establish this again with variations throughout the world tolerated for many hundreds of years. The laity were not excommunicated for not knowing these things, or for being in possession of a book not part of the Cannon. Your argument is a non-sequitor as ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.
Speray replies: YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. I’ll prove that it is key and I think you already know that because that’s why you wouldn’t answer it.
Your sect defined a NEW doctrine that must be believed to be “saved” and to remain a member of the sect. Directly contradicting previous saints teachings… making them anathema. So “st.” Thomas is no longer Catholic… nor St. John Chrysostom apparently.
Speray replies: Answer my question and I’ll show you why you’re wrong.
New doctrine, not required for belief became absolutely necessary for salvation overnight and directly contradicted the teachings of great saints and even the so-called father of western scholasticism. Absurd! Yet you will sing a song and tapdance all around this with sophisms to make it seem logical… its not. Dance till your feet fall off, its ridiculous and it will never be the TRUTH.
There’s nothing more for me to say to you brother. Live with absurdity and contradiction if that is what you wish. I cannot continue this interaction without falling into more sin than I already have. Pride is a terrible thing. God be with you. I suggest you read PP9ths encyclical to the Eastern Uniats and then read the Orthodox response.
The temptation to respond is too great for my weak will.
You:
Cyprian of Carthage: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
Me:
Where in the above quote is the “pope” mentioned?
Speray Replies: Come now, you know very what the chair of Peter is. The term pope and papacy came long after the office.
What is the context of this writing from St. Cyprian?
Speray replies: The context is supplied. He’s very clear, so clear in fact, that you don’t know what to say but ask questions that you already know the answer to. This clearly bothers you as well it should as I’ll prove in a minute.
How many Churches did St. Peter found??? Was it only Rome?
Speray replies: Christ founded the One Church. We don’t know exactly how many churches of that One Church Peter founded. We know that he was in Antioch, right? We know that he appointed a leader at Antioch, too.
Was Rome even first to be founded by St. Peter???
Speray replies: Probably not. It doesn’t matter. The headquarters were set up in Rome by Peter and that’s what counts.
Have any of the Fathers… such as Blessed Augustine, or Cyprian, or St. Ambrose or St. Cyril said things like “the rock which Christ founded His Church is the not on Peter himself, but on his confession that “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God”???
Speray replies: Not exactly. I already provided St. Cyprian, more quotes from Augustine, Ambrose, Ephraim, and Cyril below… It’s both Peter and his confession of Faith. Peter means Rock. However, it doesn’t matter concerning the fact that Peter was made head of the Church and the sign of unity. That’s the point. If it’s a heresy to say that Peter was head of the Church as so many Church Father’s said He was head, surely you have some Father condemning it as heresy, right? And even if you did find one Father, by what authority do you say he’s right? That’s why I’m asking the question on the Bible that you don’t want to answer. I know why.
Ephraim the Syrian said, “[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
St. Cyril: “For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven.” Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350. “Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly.” Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15. “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ.” Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27.
St. Augustine: “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).”Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
St. Ambrose: “[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]). “It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
I inserted answers into your comment.
Oh my… your blindness is palpable friend. How many times was St. Paul’s name mentioned in Acts? More nonsense and utter lack of context.
Speray replies: Yes, you are blind!
Are you absolutely sure that there is no evidence (perhaps scriptural or even by other Fathers) that put St. Paul, St. John and St. James on equal footing (or at least one of them) with St. Peter… you might want to re-think that stance and do a google search perhaps… its kind of… well… ridiculous to say… whether you agree with the evidence is one thing, but to deny its existence is just plain ignorant.
Speray replies: I’m sure. You have nothing. That’s why you didn’t even try quoting something.
How about you link the work of the saint you have supposedly read… the one who’s quote you say means something that there’s absolutely NO reason to believe it means since as YOU said the papacy did not yet exist, yet you claim the saints are speaking of the very papacy that does not yet exist… strange. Link the work this quote has been slashed out of… full context please. Then we’ll see who’s filling history with his own ideas (or the ideas of your sect more accurately).
Speray replies: Quotes speak clearly enough. Where are your quotes?
Why would an Eastern Father condemn something that doesn’t mean what you say it means? Your interpretation (your sect’s interpretation) came after the death of these Fathers. And since noone saw it to mean what you say it means, there was no reason to condemn.
Speray replies: Wrong! Again, you give me your opinions like every Protestant does against the Church.
Its time to re-read Blessed Augustine’s retractions. Perhaps you don’t realize you’ve only studied sectarian snippits of the Fathers. This leads to a VERY WARPED idea of what the Fathers believed, practiced and spoke on.
Speray replies: You made an accusation and I asked you to show me where do you see in Augustine that he contradicts himself on the supremacy of Peter and his successors? ALL YOU DO IS MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS. YOU HAVE NOTHING!
I GUARANTEE THAT YOU’LL REPLY BACK AND WON’T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
Lord have mercy on us sinners!
Limiting your knowledge to snippits and quotes is the sectarian way but it is a start I suppose… if you will only heed quotes because for whatever reason… that’s fine… here you go… (borrowed from a great researcher… who borrows from other great researchers.) You might want to re-read these a few times to let the contradiction to your sectarian views sink in a bit. Its hard… and I’m not kidding around… when you see things one way its really hard to un-see the error.
Blessed Augustine:
“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
BUT THE ROCK WAS CHRIST… FOR THOU ART PETER, NOT THOU ART THE ROCK…. HMMMMM….
Speray replies: I see that you didn’t provide a quote that denies Peter’s authority. I see no condemnation against Rome’s claim, either. HMMMMM…..
St. Cyprian:
“Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6)” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).
EQUAL FELLOWSHIP OF HONOUR AND POWER??? HMMMMM…
Speray Replies: Cyprian is not saying that Peter’s office is less authoritative, but rather that his office belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Peter was the example of each local bishop who has the power to remit sins, etc. He most certainly believed in the primacy of Peter’s successors as I provided the other quotes which you don’t address.
“Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).
NOTHING ABOUT A “pope” OR THE BISHOP OF ROME??? HMMMM…
Speray replies: Not there. It’s in my quote about the Chair of Peter, remember?
A good start.
Lord have mercy on us sinners.
PS… perhaps this should move on to a private discussion… you can publish whatever you wish, but I’m not receiving notifications on your responses any-more and they are getting all out of order and jumbled up due to the strange reply function. Again… a tit for tat quotation debate is not intended as stated… Stimulation to further and deeper research into the historical facts in full context was the intention. The info is out there and with prayer and effort you can find it, by the grace of God. God be with you and may He have mercy on us!
Blessed Augustine 3: (Last one, redundancy)
“But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church.” (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).
FOR ME WHO WISHED TO BE BUILT UPON MEN, SAID ‘I AM OF PAUL; AND I OF APOLLOS; AND I OF CEPHAS, ‘WHO IS PETER. BUT OTHERS WHO DID NOT WISH TO BUILT UPON PETER, BUT UPON THE ROCK, SAID, ‘BUT I AM OF CHRIST.’?????????????
SO NEITHER IN THE NAME OF PETER; BUT IN THE NAME OF CHRIST…
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM………….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lord have mercy on us!
I still don’t see anything that denies Peter’s authority and that’s the point.
Orthodox ARE TRUE Christians… and on that we agree!
There’s talk about “Peter” being head apostle, but NOTHING about a “pope” or a king. Nor does he say much about what being head apostle means… it sure doesn’t mean he bosses the other apostles around and “lords it over” them “like the gentiles” and “popes” do! Since that is EXACTLY what Christ said NOT to do.
You really should re-read “Etsi Multa” and pay close attention to the part when he (PP9) talks about the “gates of hell” and goes on an anathema rampage. Its the same condemnation you get from Novus Ordites about why Franko can’t be an anti-pope, some of the R&R crowd pull this defense also. They are pulling from the same play book as PP9 and his condemnation of the sede camp before sede’s came into existence.
Lord have mercy on sinners!
Ooops. Typo. I meant to say are NOT true Christians!
As for Peter being the head Apostle, read St. Cyprian again but closer… “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251])
St. Cyprian is saying that you’re not holding the faith and are not in the Church!
And St. Cyril of Jerusalem “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” ( (Catechetical Lectures [A.D. 350], 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).
And what are those Keys, Michael? What do they symbolize? What does your religion say?
As for your Etsi Multa argument, that document helps our cause because the Gates of hell are heretics and their heresies. They can’t be popes.
Seriously… its like you don’t even read these documents and rely specifically on argumentation and the leg work of your opponent to reference all the necessary points. This is not only lazy, but DANGEROUS.
PP9 says the following… fully condemning the SEDE movement over 100 years before its inception: (Just insert “II” after “vatican council”)
“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.” (PP9 Etsi Multa)
I’ll get back to you on the exaggerations and confusions of St. Cyprian, while you have a chance to chew on the FACT that a so-called “pope” is essentially condemning you and your movement to “the face”.
Lord have mercy on us!
Pope Pius IX is not condemning sedevacantism because sedevacantism says there’s no pope, therefore we aren’t being condemned because we aren’t saying the Roman Pontiff fell into heresy and we’re not saying the Visible Head has erred. THERE IS NO POPE! This proves that you can’t understand a simple document. No wonder you’re a member of the Eastern Orthodox religion. It’s like you never even tried to understand what we’re saying. You haven’t read our material or studied what we’re saying. All you’re doing is using an old straw-man argument while locking yourself in a false religion!
Do your homework!
Wow… You know, you sede’s don’t agree on anything other than the current clown show “Franko” isn’t a real pope. You’ll have to excuse my “error” as to your personal flavour of sedevacantism. You all say similar nonsense, but prattle on about who has valid priests and who was the last “pope”. Its hard to remember the hair splitting issues of each individual (since its entirely based on individual opinions)…. and its easy to forget who believes what. So who was the last “pope” according to your calculations (I forgot… whoops, its all the same to me)? There’s no authority in your little sectarian escapade so its up to your own personal “research” and calculations…
Some say, PP12 was the last one, some J23, some say PP10, some Leo 13… what’s your flavour oh great sede researcher??? Then we can talk about what contradictions you’ve either ignored…. or simply haven’t gotten around to reading… in your “false religion” of self.
Lord have mercy on us sinners!
The fact is it doesn’t matter concerning your Pope Pius IX Etsi Multa argument. It doesn’t condemn any sede. Admit that you don’t know what you’r talking about. Of course sedes don’t agree on everything. You Eastern Orthodox don’t either. You actually condemned your own religion in your attempt to condemn mine. Lol. Your trash talking only makes you look all the more foolish.
Not all sede’s agree on who was the first so-called “anti-pope”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Doesn’t matter in relation to your argument using Etsi Multa.
Not all sede’s agree on how said (insert first anti-pope) became said “anti-pope”…
SPERAY REPLIES: Doesn’t matter in relation to your argument.
Some say the first (whoever that individual believes was the first) fell into heresy and “ipso facto” lost his “throne”… some believe the first “anti-pope” was invalidly elected, while others have even stranger ideas.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not all sedes are Catholic, either. Some are just crazy just like we’ve seen all throughout Christian history. So what? Your point?
Perhaps you don’t know your ilk as well as you think you do.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know far better than you do.
I have noticed that few sedes actually interact with one another, usually condemning each other as heretics and compromisers and all other such things.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, there are sectarian sedes and non-sectarian sedes, Catholic sedes and non-Catholic sedes. Your point?
Perhaps I know more than you think I do…
SPERAY REPLIES: Well you can’t read and understand the simple document Etsi Multa. You completely misunderstood and misapplied it.
I just don’t speak from your reference point? Or perhaps I am a foolish ignoramus who just wants to bash your position to make me feel good about myself? Who knows… perhaps a bit of both. Maybe I sympathise with your position for personal reasons… and it pains my heart to see someone so close and yet so far.
SPERAY REPLIES: I actually like your fighting spirit. Really!
That said… PP9’s statement above should raise an eyebrow to any sede, especially YOU, since you DO BELIEVE that the entire Roman church fell into heresy at Vatican II… EVERY SINGLE BISHOP, all apostates (this I agree with by the way… they appear to have created a new sect at Vatican II, but my agreement means nothing).
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. It raises no eyebrows and I don’t believe every bishop fell into heresy at Vatican 2.
How the so-called “anti-pope” came into existence is hair splitting… the fact of the matter is… that your sect (sede’s) all believe (most anyway) that the overwhelming majority i.e. ALL Bishops, defected from the faith, something PP9 condemns.)
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! You still got it wrong. He’s condemning how all the bishops could defect with the pope teaching heresy. Popes can’t officially teach heresy. Therefore, bishops who side with pope in an official teaching can’t defect from the faith. THAT WAS THE POINT.
To be fair, there are some who believe in a secret underground resistance, but only some. There are plenty of sede “home aloners” popping up too, with their own flavour of sede theologizing.
SPERAY REPLIES: Catholics can be wrong about such things. It has no bearing on the question.
I haven’t condemned my own… you came out with “you don’t know what you’re talking about… you didn’t read… blah, blah etc… so here you have evidence that I’ve read… I know exactly what I’m talking about, I just don’t follow your sectarian conclusions because they are absurd. I fully understand them, but I don’t know if you actually do. Because if you did… you would see the absurdity. But the beliefs of people seem to be a mystery of a sort that doesn’t necessarily follow reason… you could turn that around on me and it would still be true.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! You don’t know what you’re talking about and this entire comment of yours proves it.
I said it before, and I’ll say it once more… argumentation is a waste of time… worth almost nothing and usually leads to sin. My apologies for wasting our time together and for throwing in my own arrogance.
SPERAY REPLIES: Actually, I don’t think you’re wasting my time. I like your spirit and perhaps someone else can benefit from this is if not you and I. Lol.
Goodbye brother… God be with you…. and may He have mercy on us sinners.
SPERAY REPLIES: God be with you, too… and may He have mercy on us all.
Sorry brother… one more quote before I get on to St. Cyprian…
Origen is perported by the papists to be a papist… this is so very much NOT the case however, as shown in the (FULL CONTEXTUAL QUOTE) below:
“And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock.” (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
Lord have mercy on us blind sinners… Gospodi pomiloi nas!
You did know that Origin was condemned by the Catholic Church, right? He also didn’t believe in the eternity of hell and many other things the Church condemned. Check out wikepedia on Origen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
Leaving aside that there are just as many quotes that put St. James and St. John and St. Paul on equal footing as St. Peter, by the Fathers,
Speray replies: Nope. There are no quotes that show others equal in authority to Peter.
but rather than argue cherry picked quotes that you refuse to show context with (probably because you’ve read nothing more than the quotes themselves and not the full works of those being quoted… a common sectarian method of operation)
Speray replies: I see that you still don’t answer my questions but demand that I answer yours. Do you disagree with the quotes?
Lets go back to your demand that St. Peter be recognized as the head of the Apostles and also the Church… this leads to some further questions if your “papal” claims are to have any coherence
Speray replies: Not only do we have the quotes, we have it in practice. Where are the condemnations against Rome’s claim? Cite one, please.
1. Where is it shown that St. Peter (assuming he really was this Apostolic Church Emperor as you and your sectarian forefathers demand to be so) passed on his “keys” to the next Bishop of Rome?
Speray replies: There are no actual keys, it’s only symbolic of authority and succession. I’ve already proved my point with the quotes. Where are condemnations? You need to provide quotes. You just give me your opinions like anyone of any religion can do. You have no substance to your comments.
What father quoted says any such thing… And please don’t quote anyone other than those who you’ve already quoted since the context of what they are speaking about is the issue, not someone else’s context, but the very context of the father being quoted.
Speray replies: I provided you the quotes. What part did you not understand? They speak clearly enough.
2. If the “office of pope” came later… then how do you know what these Fathers are talking about? Where is the “office” mentioned in practice?
Speray replies: The office did not come later, the title of pope for the office came later. Again, why don’t you address the quotes I provided?
3. It does not bother me (the context) as it is simply missing. You seem to provide your own context to push your sectarian view, but it has not been established that your sectarian view is the same view being discussed by the St.’s.
Speray replies: Do your homework. Quotes speak for themselves. Do you disagree with the quotes? Yes, you do. You don’t like the fact that the East recognized Peter’s authority over the rest. Where are the condemnations? I’ve read St. Clement’s letter in full. It’s devastating to your position because not one Eastern Father condemns Clement for it and it was the East that asked for the Pope’s decision in the matter.
4.We know that St. Peter established at least 3 major original Churches, all had Bishops consecrated… we also know that St. Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome… confusing info for a Roman Sectarian….
Speray replies: Irrelevant to Peter’s authority over all bishops. Nothing confusing except in the minds of those who simply won’t accept the fact that the Father’s tell us that Peter is the head of the Church.
5. The “headquarters” were later established in Constantinople so what?
Speray Replies: Even Avignon. So what? Your point?
6. Claiming that St. Peter was the head of the entire Church has never been established as “heresy” to my knowledge, although it would be perhaps considered a foolish idea seeing the scale of the early Church.
Speray relies: Where’s your evidence in writing or practice?
“Representing” is not the same as being the emperor. However it is heterodox to claim the Bishop of Rome is the autocratic ruler of the Church, or ever has been. This is nonsense.
Speray replies: Where do you see any Eastern Father condemning it in anyway even if to say it’s nonsense? Nowhere!
7. Augustine contradicts himself… read his retractions.
Speray replies: I’ve read Retractationes by Augustine. Have you? Where do you see in it that he contradicts himself on the supremacy of the Peter and his successors? ANSWER THAT QUESTION!
8. Why, if St. Peter was the autocratic Church ruler… the sole holder of the keys… were councils necessary?
Speray replies: Why what? Councils were necessary because Peter and his successors don’t know everything. They need the input of others even some who might know more than they. Sole holder of the keys partly means that he has the final say and whatever choice he makes, he is prevented by God from making an error.
An autocratic Church leader is not scriptural by the way, but Councillor authority IS SCRIPTURAL, see ACTS.
Speray replies: Wrong! We have the old Testament and the Davidic kingdom. We have Jesus referencing the Davidic kingdom when He gives Peter alone the keys. As for the book of Acts, Peter settles the matter after much debate in Acts 15:7 as popes have done in many other councils in history. Barnabas and Paul confirm the truth in verse 12 and then James puts in his two-cents worth. James has to say, “Listen to me” since his words need everybody’s attention unlike Peter’s, who already has everybody’s attention. Peter does not have to say, “listen to me” because they listen and when he spoke, “the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:12). James then gives his judgment on how Peter’s words are to be applied.
Again, it is Peter most mentioned in the Book of Acts. “Peter stood up among the brethren…and said” (Acts 1:15). “Peter standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them” (Acts 2:14). “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” (Acts 2:37). “Peter said to them” (Acts 2:38). “Peter saw it and addressed the people” (Acts 3:12). “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them” (Acts 4:8). “Peter and the apostles answered” (Acts 5:29). Peter is mentioned another forty-nine times in the Book of Acts alone. There are other verses to show Peter is the shepherd over Christ’s flock but these suffice.
The book of Acts clearly has Peter as the head of the Church. Would you like to comment again so that Catholicism is proven right once more? You are really helping me make a case against Eastern Orthodoxy. Are you sure you’re not really a Catholic pretending to be Orthodox so that I can prove how wrong the Eastern Orthodox religion really is?
The Heresy of Modernism has been around for a long time but the Vatican II council’s effects are self evident .It is a chastisement for lukewarm Catholicism . When Roncalli ‘s plan was put in place the Church had already been primed by Americanism and the Age of reason to follow this heretical movement. In the 1940’s American Cinema had a ‘Going My Way” view of Catholicism which was picked up by many Catholics . Almost every “Catholic” movie had the feel good ecumenical influence in them. There were always the Priest, the Pastor and the Rabbi or a Priest a good and generous Jewish friend who was very wise and the open minded Protestant who would assist and help . Just one big happy Family who all would go to Heaven by just believing . In one Movie the Priest who is at the deathbed of a friend who is an atheist, take great pains not to bully the dying man and push his religion on this man who is about to go to Hell, showing how political correctness was more important then ones salvation. The man was so grateful to the Priest for his restraint . I often wondered if after the atheist died and entered Hell would he be so grateful to his false friend. To bad they couldn’t film that meeting. as we are now in the last years of Bergoglio it will be interesting how long will be ” Going My Way”.
Blessed Augustine 2:
“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.” (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
CHRIST BUILT HIS CHURCH NOT ON A MAN BUT ON PETER’S CONFESSION???? HMMMMMM…..
It’s both. I already told you that. Peter mean’s rock. And Augustine most clearly believed in the primacy of Peter. Your point?
Even more interesting, there’s nothing to support you claims in these quotes! Augustine most definitely does not believe in the “pope”, nor the “chair” as being some kind of king over the Church. Show me where he states it directly. He actually says quite the opposite when he speaks on St. Paul’s epistle “those who wish to be of men say I am of Paul… I am of Cephas’, who is Peter… those who are of God say ‘I am of Christ’… was Paul crucified for you?”
Speray replies: Now pay close attention. I’ll give you the quote again. St. Augustine: “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).”Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Latins (you) are of men “I am of Peter” i.e. the “pope”… Orthodox (me) are of God, “I am of Christ”.
Speray replies: Actually, Orthodox are not true Christians at all.
You also use a slick tactic (not you personally, your sect) that is common with the modern heretics that we both agree to condemn (Modernists)… your sect takes a word like “primacy” and make it to mean something that it does not mean. “Primacy” is not an authoritative title but is honorary and changeable. Giving a soldier the medal of honor for bravery in duty does not grant him command over the army… similarly, granting the Bishop of the Capitol of the Empire the honor of “1st among EQUALS” does not grant him any authority or command over the other Bishops, else we would have had two heads “popes” after the council that put Constantinople on the same rank as Rome, being the new Capitol of the Empire… I think that happened during Chalcedon, when they started re-arrange honorary title numbers in the Churches… Leo got all bent about it and tried to get Alexandria to back him up, since he saw it as an insult to Alexandria… I think that was Chalcedon… I’m sure you’ve read the cannons.
Also, were you aware that the Alexandrians call their Patriarch a “pope”? He’s never had any authority over other Churches either. You’re claims are absurd… they always have been and this is why the West broke from the original 5 churches and had no following. NEW doctrine, NEW so-called authority. Suddenly all alone in the world… with a new mission in life to gain imperial (papal) control over the whole world.
Now days, Francis seems bent on self destruction, yet the doctrine of the “pope” is still going strong, especially when he removes from positions of authority all who object to his progressive tyranny. Its Pius 9th all over again but then it was the “Old Catholics” and all who tried to argue against the so-called “immaculate conception” and “papal infallibility” in the First Vatican council.
I highly suggest you read “Etsi Multa” (Pius 9th)’s condemnation of the “Old Catholics”. It will blow your mind… since he is also condemning Sedevacantism in his arguments against the OC. This may be an “uh oh” moment as it seems to use “infallible” terminology.’
Speray replies: He is not condemning sedevacantism. Where do you see that?
Lord have mercy on us sinners and heal our blindness.
And just because “fr” Cekada switched up his argument to “Cum Ex” doesn’t mean all you sede’s agree on this argument. Cekada’s only an authority with some. Apparently you follow his reasoning. Whatever… there are plenty more self appointed “experts” who don’t.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Cum ex presents a divine law that all sedes agree upon. Namely, a heretic can’t be elected pope.
Steven…
“Bp” Sanborn does NOT agree with “Cum ex”, neither does his predecessors ridiculous “thesis”. They claim that 1917 Code “abrogated” this ancient law. Check your sources… and “Fr.” Cekada is close to his operation. Who believes what?
SPERAY REPLIES: What you fail to understand in that Cum ex is citing a divine law on heretics not obtaining the papacy. As Church law, Cum ex was abrogated by the 1917 Code. However, all of us sedes agree with Cum ex’s divine law that heretics can’t obtain the papacy. Again, you have proven that you don’t know what you’re talking about with the Catholic Church.
Sede’s don’t agree on much friend.
SPERAY REPLIES: All Catholic sedes agree on every single doctrine.
I’m confused as to how you don’t know this. Ever heard of the Dimond Bros?
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course. I’ve written against them many times. They reject the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of desire and blood. Do your homework and find out why and how they aren’t Catholics, but heretics, much like the Eastern Orthodox.
Your movement has no checks or balances… just self proclaimed “prophets” who fight and excommunicate each-other. Its a natural outcome of the situation even if it is absurd.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s no movement. We are simply the Catholic Church who follows the teaching and laws of the Church. The Dimond’s don’t. That’s why they aren’t Catholic.
That said… I have a tremendous respect for the attempt to uphold “Tradition” in the Sede camp… even if it is frought with error, sectarianism and boatloads of fighting. An honest search for Truth and Tradition will never be fruitless. But lawless situations attract the enemy who brings out the worst in us. Then there are the sharlatains and parasites looking for a free lunch and sometimes worse.
I do not envy your position, but it is better than the hippy Novus dis-Ordo circus. A step in the right direction perhaps. May the Mother of God protect you and lead you to her Divine Son’s mercy and grace.
SPERAY REPLIES: Thank you! May the Mother of God lead to the Catholic Church with us.
God be with you brother.
Great debate here, thanks to the both of you, Steven and Michael.
As a recent con/revert to Catholicism, and even more recent recognizer of the heresy known as Vat. II and its subsequent sect, such a debate is indispensable in the pursuit of Truth.
That said, I’m personally swayed more by Steven’s arguments. Michael simply didn’t provide enough relevant quotes, and two of his “star witnesses”, Cyprian and Augustine, actually prove Steven’s case.
Jerome… This isn’t a “debate” simply a flag shot up to help honest sedes to become aware that the True Church was abandoned by Rome 1000 years ago… NOT 50 years ago.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. Eastern Orthodox left the true Church 1000 years ago as I proved. The East always recognized the supremacy of Rome. That’s a fact!
Debate is time consuming and I have other things that require my attention. That said… Here’s a map, if you have any interest in the Truth and doing your own research… rather than just finding snippit quotes online like most do… here are a few sources to read as roadmaps to Truth i.e. Orthodoxy.
1. The “Commonatorium” by St. Vincent of Lerrin (Ancient French Saint)
2. The Patriarch’s response to Pope Pius 9th’s Encyclical to the Eastern Uniats
3. Geutee’s “The Papacy” by a former French Catholic Monk who woke up to the papist facade and eventually became Orthodox in the 1800’s… More quotes and sources than you can juggle all day. (Best source that destroys papism)
If you look up the 1800’s/early 1900’s Roman Catholic PATHETIC response to this… it is even stronger evidence that Rome has been in apostasy for a millennium.
4. Pope Pius 9th condemnation of the “Old Catholics” in the encyclical “Etsy Multa”… when read, it is a direct condemnation of sedevacantism almost 100 years early!
SPERAY REPLIES: I already answered your objection on Nov. 23, 2017. Pope Pius IX is not condemning sedevacantism because sedevacantism says there’s no pope, therefore we aren’t being condemned because we aren’t saying the Roman Pontiff fell into heresy and we’re not saying the Visible Head has erred. THERE IS NO POPE! This proves that you can’t understand a simple document. No wonder you’re a member of the Eastern Orthodox religion. It’s like you never even tried to understand what we’re saying. You haven’t read our material or studied what we’re saying. All you’re doing is using an old straw-man argument while locking yourself in a false religion!
Enjoy.
Now if you’re interested in the Truth above all else, rather than being a sectarian like most.. you will find the above very interesting and they’re not long to read. That said… Orthodoxy today is suffering from modernist issues also… the monstrosities born in the West tend to blow over into the East eventually, like a plague and have to be dealt with. This takes time to sort out.
If you do see the light and discover the Truth of Holy Orthodoxy, I suggest you avoid the Greeks in this country (at least at first)… go to the Russians (ROCOR). I don’t now if its the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of martyrs in the last century that has helped them to remain pure in Orthodoxy or what, but they are the strongest and most consistent in holding to Tradition in this country. If you go to the Greeks here it will scare the crap out of you with their liberal tendencies (not all are like that, but many are).
The modernist garbage and other liberalistic shenanegans like ecumenism etc. will be sorted out. We don’t have a papist overlord that everyone has to blindly follow so it’ll get patched up via council if necessary. If you look at history… some heresies were floating around for quite a while before they were dealt with. Its complicated, like anything else.
God be with you in your search for Truth. May it be blessed!
Steven…
So you don’t recognize “Bp.” Sanborn as a Catholic? He… and his predecessor claim that “Cum ex” is abrogated by the 1917 Code of Cannon law.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re not paying attention. It’s true. Cum ex was abrogated by the 1917 Code. I told you that. However, the divine law within Cum Ex was not abrogated by the 1917 Code. IT’S STILL THERE!
They don’t fit into your little world here. So they are not “Catholic”? Or have you never read the “cassiciacum thesis”?
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I’ve read the thesis. I agree with it to a certain extent. Again, it’s a thesis. We Catholics can disagree over things the Church hasn’t defined. This is one of those issues. I’ve told you this before.
Who hasn’t read the material or done the research here between us? It isn’t me. I keep leading you to the materials but you don’t listen.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU’RE NOT LISTENING. You’re getting literally everything wrong. A Catholic can accept or reject the thesis and still be Catholic because it’s an opinion, not doctrine.
It would be a whole lot easier for you if I was… as you say… “failing to understand and not reading etc.” but these are words of a man who is not paying attention… you. Its easy to simply dismiss… its difficult to listen and to consider… two things you are not doing even a little bit.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know this stuff like the back of my hand. I’m explaining it very clearly and you still don’t get it right.
I know who the D. bro’s are, and I know what they teach on BOD and BOB… among other novel doctrines… whether or not they are so-called “Catholics” is not my concern. You write them off as heretics… just as they do you.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sure. That’s how it works.
From my perspective you are both ridiculous and are holding to 1000 year old errors. I understand both your positions…
SPERAY REPLIES: From my perspective, the Eastern Orthodox is ridiculous since it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Even the Eastern Fathers are against them as I demonstrated.
You’ll get it eventually. You are too smart for sectarianism. Its an easy trap to fall into for sincere seekers of Truth with strong logical tendencies… but the contradictions will eventually wake you up. You should read about Fr. Seraphim Rose… particularly his Life and Works. He was like you… too smart for his own good, but found Orthodoxy and became a saint (soon to be canonized God willing). Also… the way of the Pilgrim is an excellent book to expose a man to “Prayer of the Heart”… or if that’s too simple… you could go straight to the “Philokalia” much of which is written by monks we would both agree are saints (pre-schism).
SPERAY REPLIES: Was he an Eastern Orthodox?
God be with you.
Steven…
Couldn’t resist. Your strawman “you don’t know what you’re talking about” goofball claim is irritating. You can’t be that dense.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s not a straw-man. It’s a fact. And it’s getting irritating having to explain very simple points only to have you twist them and bring them up again. So here we go….
“Bishop” Sanborn said the following absurd statement… “If Pope Francis were to convert to Catholicism tomorrow, he won’t, but if he did… he would become Pope, because he is in possession of a valid election.”
This statement is completely ridiculous and proves you sede’s will twist any situation to fit into your personal theology. How can you be in “possession” of a “valid election” when the very apostates who elected Franco are NOT CATHOLIC? Yet Sanborn can have his cake and eat it at the same time… just like you.
SPERAY REPLIES: First you argued using Sanborn and Cum ex which I explained nicely but you never conceded that point. Will you do so now? Secondly, I don’t agree with Sanborn that he was in possession of a valid election. However, this is matter of opinion, something Catholics are free to disagree with. That being said, we have popes from invalid elections. Are you aware of this fact? Francis could become pope if he retracted and converted but not because he possesses a valid election but because antipopes can assume office under certain circumstances.
“There is no Pope!” That’s not what all sede’s believe.
SPERAY REPLIES: OH YES THEY DO!!!
For example, there are people who believe that “Cardinal” Siri was the true pope and that he appointed a successor, secretly and because they don’t know who the secret pope is, they have to be sedevacantists (since the visible chair is empty as in the true pope isn’t sitting there). This isn’t my creation, I simply LISTENED to other people’s views. Not like you, who claim to be the sole authority on what it is to be Catholic.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m well aware of the Siri theory but if a person thinks there is a pope, he’s not a sedevacantist. And Catholic theology and law prohibits a secret pope. You can’t have one. Many Catholics are ignorant, confused, etc. over these points just like Catholics have always been over other things throughout history. For instance, some Catholics believed Christ wasn’t fully present in both species.
The problem here Steve is that you think your personal ideas/”theology” is universal among sedes.
SPERAY REPLIES: The problem here Michael is that you confuse Catholic theology with opinions with Catholics. You’re not making proper distinctions.
IT IS NOT. Look around, ask some questions… pull your enormous head out of the sand and see that your view is not the only form of sedevacantism.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU’RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. I’ve already told you that there are Catholic sede’s and non-Catholic sede’s. ALL BELIEVE THERE’S NO POPE. If one calling himself a sedevacantists believes there’s a pope then he is not a sedevacantist, just like a person who calls himself a Catholic but believes that hell doesn’t exist, abortion is okay, etc. he’s not a Catholic.
Or sit in the sandbox with your head in the sand until the world ends or some “apparition” comes along and appoints a new “pope” for you…. wait… that’s already happened like 12 times around the world for other sedes, and conclavists. Thanks alot “Bp” Thuc.
SPERAY REPLIES: A pope can’t come by an apparition.
I know exactly what I’m talking about and your foolish strawman argument is drawing out… its useless to “kick against the goad.”
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! YOU ONCE AGAIN PROVED THAT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. You confuse the issues between what a Catholic must believe by faith and opinions which are allowed. If you knew what you’re talking about, you wouldn’t have brought up Cum ex and the cassiciacum thesis.
God be with you.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. Eastern Orthodox left the true Church 1000 years ago as I proved. The East always recognized the supremacy of Rome. That’s a fact!
*Not in the way you think it is. First among equals is a place of honor not authority as stated above. All your so-called “proofs” require a post schism interpretation to make any sense. If you look at these so-called “proofs” from the true pre-schism Orthodox understanding… they prove nothing in your favor.*
SPERAY REPLIES: Any honest person can see that the Eastern Fathers clearly taught the supremacy of the papacy. Even history shows the East looking to Rome to get the final answer. That’s how it always was until a 1000 years ago when the East decided to do things a new way.
SPERAY REPLIES: I already answered your objection on Nov. 23, 2017. Pope Pius IX is not condemning sedevacantism because sedevacantism says there’s no pope, therefore we aren’t being condemned because we aren’t saying the Roman Pontiff fell into heresy and we’re not saying the Visible Head has erred. THERE IS NO POPE!
*Your claim that “There is no pope” is debatable, even among sede’s.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. All sedes believe there’s no pope because that’s what sedevacant means… THE CHAIR IS EMPTY. Once again, you have proven that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
How did this happen… who was the first so-called “antipope”, when this happened… how it is possible are all debated fiercely… not to mention how this can be solved.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already given an answers to how to solve it. You’re not doing enough homework.
I understand my friend quite well the situation. But because I don’t agree with your chosen position (among many positions that exist in sede culture) you dismiss me as ignorant.
SPERAY REPLIES: You are ignorant about sedevacantism and the Catholic Church. You’ve shown that time and time again like the above statement of yours that sedes disagree whether there is no pope. That’s just silly.
I’ve stated above that I get your personal position, but that’s all it is… a personal position that you find agreeable to your idea of what is reasonable. Allow me to restate your personal position so you can know that I am not ignorant of it. (The current Pope is not Catholic and cannot possible be the head of the True Catholic Church… he has an invalid election and is therefore an anti-pope. The Church has been without a valid pope (head) for “x” amount of years due to this situation. Those in communion with and subordinate to said antipope are heretics/schismatics.
SPERAY REPLIES: The last statement is not completely true. There are nuances involved.
There are few actual Catholics left in the world)… does that pretty much sum it up, plus or minus a few personal details?*
SPERAY REPLIES: Except that you also say we say the entire visible church has fallen into apostasy. That’s totally false! There are other points that you goofed on, too.
Also, if you actually READ the whole document… you DO claim that ALL the entire VISIBLE Church has fallen into apostasy… something Pius9 condemns… read it, don’t just search it or skim it. READ IT.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE. YOU GOT IT WRONG AGAIN. I’ve read it, but the point is you got the document wrong on the papacy itself.
You are actually the one using a straw man… your straw man is the false accusation that I fail to understand your position. This error has been refuted again above. This kind of argumentation is dull and circular. I’ve left you with all the materials you need and sources to check for the Truth.
SPERAY REPLIES: The one who has ever used a straw-man is you, as I showed. I’ve already proven that you don’t know what you’re talking about concerning the details of sedevacantism or basic Catholicism. You don’t concede your errors that I’ve corrected you on, either.
I am done here, unless you have a personal question for me at some point due to actually reading my provided sources. I’ve done all I can. Please feel free to contact me at any time (you have my email I assume from the site) if you do find the rabbit hole and decide to plunge toward the “Way the Truth and the Life” of Orthodoxy… who’s head is no man… but the God Man, Jesus Christ… His Name be ever blessed and may He have mercy on us poor, blind sinners.
(swordofst.luke at gmail) in case you don’t have it. No spaces. ” at ” is for @ to avoid spam bots.
May God bless you and keep you and yours.
Most of the above nonsense is really not worthy of a response. Desperate blindness is all I can really appoint it to.
I will respond to this one however, because it applies directly to what I said.
SPERAY REPLIES: “Any honest person can see that the Eastern Fathers clearly taught the supremacy of the papacy.”
No one debates the “supremacy” a place of honor. So what?
SPERAY REPLIES: You know very well that I don’t mean supremacy merely as a place of honor. Again, St. Cyprian made it clear: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
Any HONEST person can see that the Patriarch of Rome had no such thing as universal jurisdiction in the ancient Church and that all Bishops operated independently unless there was a problem, in which the problem was solved via council. NOT by Rome says so. So take your dishonest argument and ridiculous accusations back to the sandbox.
SPERAY REPLIES: History proves you wrong. The East looked to the West. That’s a fact.
Any HONEST person can see that since Vatican I, “St.” Thomas Aquinas is a heretic according to Roman dogma.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I already told you that a heretic is one who denies a dogma AFTER it’s definition. Many saints both East and West held to what we now call heresies, but not then. St. Gregory of Nyssa believed in Apocatastasis. Is that a heresy to you?
Thanks a lot Pius 9th, for ruining the Summa!
SPERAY REPLIES: Actually, Pius IX didn’t condemn Aquinas 6 versions of the immaculate conceptions. It defined the one Aquinas didn’t speak on.
No wait… its not ruined? So Romans can make stupid definitions (immaculate conception) and still have their cake and eat it? We’ll take Thomas… still call him a saint even though he DIRECTLY denies our new pet dogma that anathematizes ALL who do not believe it to the eternal flames.
SPERAY REPLIES: MORE PROOF THAT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU CONTINUE IN YOUR NONSENSE WITH THE REST OF YOUR COMMENT BELOW. I WON’T BOTHER ANSWERING.
Insanity, contradiction at its worse and straight up hypocrisy. Enjoy your pseudo-religion. At least you are not attending clown mass and witch doctor or nude dancing mass. Its a step in the right direction, but still 1000 years worth of error and absurdity. Of course you have a SONG AND A DANCE to explain away every absurd contradiction… but sing and dance all you want its still absurd.
You claim that “it IS about being right”… its not though, its about being holy and uniting with Christ the TRUE head of the Church… but if it WERE just about being RIGHT… you have FAILED. Not your fault entirely… Rome has FAILED for more than 1000 years. You were born into failure. My condolences.
You don’t have to continue the failure however. You obviously have strength of reason. Use your mind and quit falling for the party line nonsense. Sectarianism is for the weak of mind and hard of heart. The heart is the real problem. Mind is easily lead astray no matter how sharp. Without a deep love of Truth it is impossible… but all things are possible with God.
Wake up and shake off the absurdity you cling so desperately to. Christ is so close to you, but you can’t receive Him properly until you let go of “being right”… like Froto couldn’t let go of the “one ring to rule them all” till the ugly little imp bit off his finger. There’s no one to bite yer finger off for the save… The “one man to rule them all” error is blinding you… let it fall to the flaming depths where it belongs. You can do it!
God be with you.
about your conclusion that you can be saved without matter and form—– YOUR FULL OF SHITTTTT
I see you have no arguments but give the usual liberal response.
I see you have no arguments but give the usual liberal response.
Feel sorry for you, brother. It must be depressing living in your world. The Bishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục and SSPV Schismatics (I consider SSPX to be essentially orthodox) will eventually fade out and either you or your children will be returned to the Church. Just for ease of access to the sacraments though I would rather attend a canonical Orthodox parish than scutter around with Sedevacantists. Pax Christus.
Not depressed at all. In fact, it’s God’s will and it’s wonderful! He took care of of all the heretics/apostates who pretended to be Catholic all these years. Sad that the world has gone to hell but we knew it was going to happen. Our position most fits the prophecy of the great falling away foretold in II. Thess. Also, we sedes won’t fade out because we are the Catholic Church that will exist until the end of time, which probably won’t be around another 50 years. CMRI is actually growing leaps and bounds. I have priest who comes to my home once a month, which means I get the sacraments more often than most Christians in the first centuries. Life is good. God is Great! Long Live Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.