The Papacy - Where Peter is, There is the Church

Catholic Legate ^ | September 23, 2004 | Father M. Piotrowski

[DBeers]

I don't have the same opinions as the Pope. Does that mean that I can't be with God?

No, it means you understand what 'with' means but wish to continue a fruitless academic exercise because you may have an incessant need to be 'right'.

[Phsstpok]

lots of noise, but still no actual logical point that I got "wrong." No fact that I stated has been even MENTIONED by anyone, mearly hysterical SHOUTING that I AM ILLOGICAL. Please, pray tell, where does my logic fail? What logical point do you disagree with. Cite ONE. That's all I ask. No one who has attacked me (yes, ATTACKED) has been honest enough to quote anything that I posted and say "this is wrong," let alone to say how it is wrong.

I am now done with this. I do not go more than 3 rounds with anyone who fails to do anything but whine, scream and accuse.

Facts are such inconvenient things for all too many people, even here on FR.

I wish you well in your obviously deeply held belief in your Church. I hope that your Church brings you comfort in this world, for it will do nothing for you in the next.

I had a pithy ending that I have now dropped.

- 30 -

[DBeers]

Why then, does the theology of the living magisterium imply there are traditions not yet revealed?

Let me add to answers you have gotten with my 'take'/understanding...

The 'the living Magisterium' can gain in understanding (e.g. in a diachronic manner) of that already divinely revealed as it would apply to that of man which becomes known. e.g. death penalty, nuclear war, abortion, aids, condoms, birth control, etcetera...

The Magisterium is the only authentic authority that can interpret AND apply the gained understanding which then becomes traditional authentic Church teaching. A recent example of Magisterial authority regards the apparent error of Spanish Bishops regarding condom use -the Magisterium promptly responded authoritatively...

Take a look here at some examples of authentic interpretation 'living' methods e.g. Historical-Critical Method & The Approach Through Cultural Anthropology:

Pontifical Biblical Commission - Interpretation of the Bible in the Church

[DBeers]

I wish you well in your obviously deeply held belief in your Church.

Faith... Truth stands alone -[it] is not relative, [it]does not depend upon disproving anything -think about that while reconciling your 'facts'...

[Phsstpok]

OK, now I post the pithy comeback I dropped earlier.

You put your faith in your church and an old man on a gold throne.

I put my faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

We'll see which faith has more value, in the long run.

[netmilsmom]

>>No, it means you understand what 'with' means but wish to continue a fruitless academic exercise because you may have an incessant need to be 'right'.<<

Hugs!
Good one!

[deaconjim]

No, it means you understand what 'with' means but wish to continue a fruitless academic exercise because you may have an incessant need to be 'right'

And what, pray tell, are you two doing? If that is what you believe I am doing, then you must also believe that the rest of Free Republic is a "fruitless academic exercise".

Fruitless, by the way, would be in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt that I would never be able to influence your beliefs, but that is not my goal. The idea of discussing things on a public forum is to possibly influence the beliefs of others who might be reading the thread. Either or both of us may have done so, and therefore the effort is not necessarily fruitless.

[DBeers]

You put your faith in your church and an old man on a gold throne.

LOL -that argument is very old as well -Satan comes to mind as one that has employed it...

[netmilsmom]

I'm just going to make it simple for you.

"with - ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wth, wth)
prep.

1. In the company of; accompanying: Did you go with her?
2. Next to; alongside of: stood with the rabbi; sat with the family.
3.
1. Having as a possession, attribute, or characteristic: arrived with bad news; a man with a moustache.
2. Used as a function word to indicate accompanying detail or condition: just sat there with his mouth open.
4.
1. In a manner characterized by: performed with skill; spoke with enthusiasm.
2. In the performance, use, or operation of: had trouble with the car.
5. In the charge or keeping of: left the cat with the neighbors.
6. In the opinion or estimation of: if it's all right with you.
7.
1. In support of; on the side of: I'm with anyone who wants to help the homeless.
2. Of the same opinion or belief as: He is with us on that issue.
8. In the same group or mixture as; among: planted onions with the carrots.
9. In the membership or employment of: plays with a jazz band; is with a publishing company.
10.
1. By the means or agency of: eat with a fork; made us laugh with his jokes.
2. By the presence or use of: a pillow stuffed with feathers; balloons filled with helium.
11. In spite of: With all her experience, she could not get a job.
12. In the same direction as: sail with the wind; flow with the river.
13. At the same time as: gets up with the birds.
14.
1. In regard to: We are pleased with her decision. They are disgusted with the status quo.
2. Used as a function word to indicate a party to an action, communicative activity, or informal agreement or settlement: played with the dog; had a talk with the class; lives with an aunt.
15. In comparison or contrast to: a car identical with the one her sister just bought.
16. Having received: With her permission, he left. I escaped with just a few bruises.
17.
1. And; plus: My books, with my brother's, make a sizable library. We had turkey with all the trimmings.
2. Inclusive of; including: comes to $29.95 with postage and handling.
18. In opposition to; against: wrestling with an opponent.
19. As a result or consequence of: trembling with fear; sick with the flu.
20. So as to be touching or joined to: coupled the first car with the second; linked arms with their partners.
21. So as to be free of or separated from: parted with her husband.
22. In the course of: We grow older with the hours.
23. In proportion to: wines that improve with age.
24. In relationship to: at ease with my peers.
25. As well as; in favorable comparison to: She could sing with the best of them.
26. According to the experience or practice of: With me, it is a question of priorities.
27. Used as a function word to indicate close association: With the advent of the rockets, the Space Age began."


This is what you are trying to enlighten us "with"?

[gbcdoj]

Please, pray tell, where does my logic fail?

There's no reason to believe that "the link to Peter has been irrevocably broken". You never provided any actual reason to show that the Roman Church lost the primacy bestowed upon her by St. Peter. You'd have to show that this primacy was transferred (if indeed it can be transferred) to another See by one of Peter's successors. But this never happened. The Roman Pontiffs, while residing in Avignon, were still the official bishops of Rome. When one of them died, the College of Cardinals elected a new Bishop of Rome, and so on until the actual residence of the Roman Pontiff was returned to the Eternal City. Nothing here could break irrevocably the Succession. You provided no actual reason for why the succession had been broken - you'd need to demonstrate the invalidity of the election of one of the Popes you dislike, and then show that, according to Canon Law in force at the time and taking into account the devolution of the electoral power onto the universal Church in case of ambiguity, all the elections after that were also invalid. You can't do that.

Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit videte: ipsa est petra quam non superbae inferorum portae vincunt: "Number the priests from the seat itself of Peter and see in that order of fathers who succeeded to whom: this is the rock which the arrogant gates of hell do not conquer." (St. Augustine, Psalm Against the Party of Donatus, 238-241)

[Phsstpok]

You never provided any actual reason to show that the Roman Church lost the primacy bestowed upon her by St. Peter.

Oh, I don't know, the little bit that 2 popes who dared to disagree with King Philip were murdered and replaced by a succession of puppets installed by Philip and de Negorat (and their successors) might be a little FACT that you (and the church) conveniently choose to ignore.

At what point did the election of Popes get turned over to the Cathars? I want to see that Papal Bull. For the Cathars surely installed at least Clement V, and likely his next four successors.

The "Roman Pontiffs" never resided in Avignon, only pretenders put in place by secular rulers of the French kingdom, who used them to advance their Earthly ambitions. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. Thus the reference, Avignon Captivity.

[deaconjim]

I'm sorry, I confused you with someone who was intelligent enough to understand my point. Please let me make this simple for you. This post opened with the statement:

"Where Peter is, there is the church … he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope."

A portion of that statement was also used as the title to the thread. I take exception to the part of the statement that says "he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope." That is a patently false statement, and since is it the opening line of the post, it is not only proper but important to discuss this point.

I am perfectly capable of understanding the definition of the word "with". Are you capable of understanding the rest of the sentence that in which that word was used?

[Phsstpok]

By the way, thank you for actually citing something that I said and providing a reasoned argument against it. I greatly appreciate the courtesy that others have denied me.

I will argue with you and am prepared to be corrected where I am in error. I ask that you "hit me up side the head" if I get snippy or in any way get disrespectful regarding any actual facts or reasoned arguments that you put forward.

I posted a quick reply, I'm going over the rest of your post and thinking it through for later response, if warranted, but again, thank you.

[netmilsmom]

Let's try this again.
This statement was made by a nun, who stated that she was visited by Mary.
If you don't believe that she was then why are fussing about this at all???????

I guess I don't have your superior intellect. Please excuse me for just being a stupid Catholic.

[AlbionGirl]

Ok, I think I understand now. I wasn't at all clear on what apostolic succession really means, and that's why I gave the argument creedence it doesn't merit.

As always, thank you.

[deaconjim]

For once, we agree.

[netmilsmom]

LOL!
That's good!

[gbcdoj]

For the Cathars surely installed at least Clement V

Clement V and his successors were legitimately elected by the Cardinals in conclave. See Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church here.

If you have historical proof otherwise, I'd like to see it.

[deaconjim]

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. I don't mean to be rude.

The whole point of posting something on a discussion forum is to debate those points made in the article. Since the post started with a falsehood, I thought it appropriate to point that out. Since the issue is salvation, and anyone who is not saved might get the wrong information about how to be saved by reading it, it is important that the falsehood be exposed. I have to assume that anyone who challenges my point is interested in debating that point.

[netmilsmom]

Check out Mr. Right, on the last post.