the Church and Modernity

Here, I will attempt to dicuss what seem to me very plausible reasons for the decline of faith in our modern days. The reasons I speak of are the mode of preaching and the mode of prayer: lex praedicandi et lex orandi.

It is my firm conviction that the loss of faith can and should be blamed on us faithful also. We have a responsibility to actively spread and cultivate a culture of faith - a responsibility which many of us have compromised for the sake of modernity:

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16)

Jesus teaches that we Christians are the salt, the light of this world: with our faith we show others the path unto righteousness - as a light shows the way in the dark; with our faith we add what is lacking for the world to be good - as salt gives taste to food.

What do we expect then when we neglect the fact that we are to be the salt and light of this world? We can expect nothing good from this - neither for ourselves nor for others.

Here, I will discuss - as said above - two areas of the Christian faith which have been affected negatively by modernism:
1) the mode of prayer
2) the mode of preaching


on the mode of prayer:

The mode of prayer includes our mode of worship and all external expressions of spiritual devotion. The way this mode has been affected by modernism is evident in almost every single parish of the Catholic world. One could point out the simple fact that many Catholics - including clerics - do not appreciate expressions of great devotion like e.g. kneeling during Holy Communion or receiving the Sacred Species on one's tongue instead of on one's hand. Likewise, we can experience that older, solemn hymns are rarely sung in the Liturgy, traditional prayers are almost totally unknown to the current generation of Catholics, the use of Latin has almost totally disappeared from our Liturgical practices, illicit "innovations" can be seen not rarely in Catholic Masses (including the mode of celebrating the Forma Ordinaria entirely versus populum, excessive use of female extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, the abandonment of the use of the talar and rochette by some altar servers, etc.), prayers and songs are sometimes "protestantized" for "ecumenism", etc. etc..
In summary, our lex orandi has been modified in a way to "fit the challenges of modern times". Most of these "innovations", however, have taken root not as something decreed or even appreciated by Rome - which is the source and rule of orthodoxy - but rather as being introduced "from below" (the Church is a hierarchy and is ruled from the top to bottom, not vice-versa); often times being contrary to the Tradition of the Church.

Now, how does this change in our prayer life affect the faith of other people and of Catholics as well? The answer is actually pretty simple: it is precisely connected to the quotation from the Gospel of St. Matthew as shown above: we are to be the salt and light of the world. This means that our way of living in and of itself should be likened to a prayer expressing also outwardly - i.e. to others; especially the non-believers - our devotion to Sacred Truth. If one prays in such a way that a spectator can easily recognize the sincerity of one's spirituality, then it is probable that the spectator - even if a non-believer - will be moved or "impressed" by such deep devotion. A prayer said with full conviction, a hymn sung with highest devotion, a Mass celebrated with utmost solemnity are akin to a song capable of touching the depths of the human soul. It is therefore not only by what we do, but also by how we do certain things that people around us will judge our deeds.
If one then - wishing not to be deemed "conservative" or "backwards" - "modernizes" his mode of prayer in such a way that it loses its "spice" (or "saltiness"), that is its outward expression of one's inner conviction, then what is to be expected of him who sees this person's mode of prayer? Certainly the spectator would not be moved by such a sight in any religiously positive manner. Instead, it seems more plausible to assume that our spectator would think that the person praying is not fully convinced of the truth he claims to believe in. His prayer is likened to "vain babbling": one says a lot, but what one says is void of meaning as it is void of sincerity.
Why then - one might ask - should a non-believer even be compelled to appreciate - much less to admire - such show of lacking faith? What is it in the showcasing of lacking trust in Sacred Truth that may permeate a spectator's soul? Nothing. On the contrary, such mode of prayer will be understood as an expression of the believer not taking his own faith seriously. If then the believer himself does not take his own faith seriously, why should the non-believer even consider it? The missionary aspect of the believer's life is then neglected. And what happens to other believers? Lex orandi, lex credendi: our mode of prayer reveals our faith. By submitting to a mode of prayer lacking full conviction, one's own faith will begin to waver: and as believers make up a communion, a community, such outward expression of lacking conviction will certainly not remain unnoticed amongst others: it will be the cause for ane eventual departure from the orthodox faith, and later - perhaps - even from the faith altogether.

All this for the sake of being "modern".

And Catholics wonder why there are not enough vocations?


I believe I have dealt enough with the mode of prayer. I shall continue to express my thoughts:


on the mode of preaching:

"Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt save thyself and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:16)

There are two serious errors not few clerics of these our times are guilty of - also for the sake of modernity:

1) abandoning the mode of preaching in an eplicitly orthodox manner
2) the use of "modern language" to "better convey the Good Message" to the modern man


to 1:

The first error is one which has become pretty obvious - especially after the Second Vatican Council. Now, let it be clarified, that I am not blaming the Council for these problems, but rather the unfaithful application of its decrees rooted in a false understanding of religious liberty and of the "ecumenical" aspirations of the Council.
It is not that easy to nowadays find a Catholic priest who preaches in his sermons that which is explicitly Catholic. Often times, one will hear sermons about basic principles of the Christian faith which are shared by most other non-Catholic Christian communities, or the focus is on "being a good person". Doctrine - which divides the schismatics from the Catholic Church - is often ignored. The focus is exaggeratedly put on the similarities, while the differences are almost never pointed out.

What are the problems that arise from such a mode of preaching?

They are pretty clear to me:
The Sacred Liturgy is at the heart of the Catholic life: it is the main area where catechesis on the truths of the orthodox Christian faith takes place. So, if then orthodox preaching is neglected in the Holy Mass, what is to be expected from the church-goers? They will certainly not develop a love for orthodoxy, a desire for truth. Instead, it is more plausible to assume that these would develop an attitude of liberalism: "doctrines just divide us, what matters is that we believe in Jesus and are good people. It does not matter whether one is Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical or whatever else. To have faith in Christ is all that matters."
This is actually a very common attitude to find among protestants. One can say then, that this mode of preaching leads to a "protestantization" of the faith. Just by reading Matthew 7:21-29 and reading it in connection to Matthew 16:17-19, it ought to be clear that it is necessary - by Divine ordination - that we be in communion with the Rock, St. Peter, upon which the Church - the Catholic Church - was built by Christ Jesus. Doctrine therefore is highly relevant.
The Church is to lead us to the fullnes of truth that we may attain life eternal. Why then do certain clerics refuse to preach orthodoxy? Perhaps because it may seem "offending" to non-Catholic Christians? If that be the rule of dialogue, then conflicts may never be solved as noone would care to discuss the differing views and - based upon such discussion - to seek solutions for the problem at hand. For Christianity, this means that we wilfully and knowingly work - not actively, but passively - against the will of the Christ who prayed for Christians that "they may be one" (John 17:11). What is there to expect when one lives in a state of opposition to God's will? Certainly nothing good.

"To love is to will what is truly good for another." - St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P.

Thus, to refuse to lead people to the fulness of truth, and thus to salvation, is a sin against charity: it is a sin against the schismatics for they are left to their errors, it is a sin against the Church - the mystical Body of Christ - for the purity and orthodoxy of the faith is neither caused nor promoted nor maintained, it is a sin againt God Himself who is charity.

The other aspect of this first error, I have already mentioned above: it is the error of preaching a message primarily and solely focused on "being a good person". Now, it is without doubt, that a life of holiness should be part of Christian preaching. However, to turn this aspect to the paramount message of Christian preaching is an error. Why? Because the paramount message to be preached unto others is not a certain behaviour or lifestyle, but a person: Christ Jesus, through whom we know God. Jesus is the reason for our religion: from this flow all other aspects of Christian preaching. If one then replaces Christ, the living God, as the paramount focus of preaching, with a proposal on how to live one's life, then one may ask why one should even bother with all the religious precepts and not go directly to the essence - the core - of the message? This is precisely what is taught by the Buddha and what is promoted by secular humanism: faith in God wouldn't be the reason for our morality, but rather an unnecessary "add-on", whereas in essence the purpose of religion is to simply help a person "to live a good life".

So, while the former aspect dealing with non-orthodox preaching leads to a liberalism in the Christian faith, the latter aspect leads to apostasy, the departure from the faith.

I believe to have discussed point 1 enough, so I will move on:


to 2:

The second error in the mode of preaching is that of using "modern language to convey better to the modern man the Gospel of Christ". This error is actually what made me write this text after having watched a preacher made fun of since he used Disney figures as an analogy to explain Scriptural messages. There are those people who would claim that this style of preaching is "good", "modern", and "more easily understood by teenagers".
It seems obvious to me that this mode of preaching was conceived in the minds of older people who - thinking themselves to be young - have created a certain illusion regarding the attitude of modern-day folks of the younger generations. They probably think that teenagers would simply be bored by orthodox sermons, or by using the appropriate terminology in church. Therefore, they start using modern secular phrases and even some vulgar terms to seem "in" or "cool" in order to - so in theory - gain better access to the minds and hearts of teenagers.
It is an idea born of a good intention. However, having a good intention does not always guarantee a positive outcome of one's endeavors.

Now, observation can easily reveal the problems that arise from such a mode of preaching:
- Teenagers want to be taken seriously - both the believers and the non-believers. Thus, they want to be treated approriately by adults. They will not see themselves as being taken seriously when they see that the adults have stopped taking themselves seriously by acting in a "wannabe-teenager-like" manner when these "adults" speak to them. As a universal rule of common sense and decency, it is the younger that has to conform to the established systems of the older; it is the younger that has to show politeness and courtesy towards the older. I am not proposing the idea that adults are always right nor that they have to be followed in all they say nor that they are not required to also be respectful towards the younger. Instead, in this case, we are discussing the Christian faith: the older tend to be generally viewed as "conservative", while the younger are often considered "rebellious". Since Christianity is a religion that teaches there is Divine and Objective Truth which cannot be altered, i.e. dogma, then it is only appropriate to say that the right mode of behaviour when dealing with the Christian religion is the "conservative" style and not the "rebellious". Therefore, it is the younger that ought to go towards adulthood: it is a progressive development, not a regress which would be the case when adults act and speak like teenagers. Progress is positive, regress is negative.

Imagine a sermon by a priest who starts makes use of the stereotypical vulgar language and of typical teenage-idioms. What would?
The older people - who make up the vast majority of church-goers - would understand very little and would probably ask themselves why the priest is speaking in such an inappropriate manner in church.
The younger people would simply find the sermon a sad and pathetic attempt at evangelization. Moreover, such mode of preaching may well give rise to the notion that the priest himself does not take his own faith - of which he preaches - that seriously that he would stoop down to a level of using informal and inappropriate language.

Evangelization is an act done out of adherence to a Divine Command. When we therefore realize that the reason and end of our preaching is God, then it would be hard to use informal and vulgar language for such purpose.

However, there are people who boast of the large attendance in their "youth Masses", in their "youth churches", and in their "youth groups and events". They therefore justify the modern style of certain clerics and religious. But are these people really there because of God? Often times - and this I can say without doubt due to experience - the young people who attend such events reflect neither a proper understanding of basic Christian beliefs and much less of the orthodox Christian doctrines: what attracts them is the "hype" of the event, not God. I would claim such events to be idolatrous gatherings in which man celebrates himself rather than to worship God.


Another problem connected to "modern preaching" is the issue of indirect evangelization, indirect preaching. What do I mean by this? By this I mean specifically the religious, the Catholics who have entered into the religious life in orders, societiers or communities. In our times, one will more frequently see priests, brothers, sisters, and nuns who rarely or never wear their religious habits. Some even just use a simple cross or whatever small symbol to show - in a not directly apparent manner - their belonging to a certain religious community. Why is this problematic in my opinion?
It is problematic because of these reasons:
1) The religious takes vows to live his/her life for the greater glory of God, in His service, for the salvation of souls. The habit (the attire worn by the religious) is - akin to what I have discussed on the outward expression of prayer - an external witness or testimony to one's belonging to God. It is therefore also a means of "preaching": for it conveys a simple, yet profound message: "the person wearing this habit has consecrated himself totally to God". Now, a religious or a priest who does not wear the habit or the Roman collar (at least - since most modern priests have abandoned the cassock) seems like a person who suggests that he is ashamed of showing people his faith. It is not an explicit denial of the faith, but rather one which is sublime. I remind of the words of Jesus: "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33).
The Christian faith is one that has to be shared, one that has to be preached: directly or indirectly. The religious attire is a means of sharing the faith with others. The visibility of habits also shows the presence of the Church in the world: we are to be the light. How can anyone follow the religious if they cannot even be recognized as such?
2) Furthermore, the habit is used to also show - in a way - that the religious are "not of this world", though they operate "in this world". It is like an outward expression of one's death to the world and total submission to God's will: the habit does away with the external differences caused by individual, secular fashion and points to a common religious testimony:
"And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me." Galatians 2:20
Thus, to reject the wearing of the habit is perhaps to insist on individualism: it is about oneself, not about God.
3) Habits make visible to people the religious. A non-religious may be compelled to study more about this way of life and consequently about the Christian faith when he sees happy people in habits; for this shows that living in accordance to God's will does not lead to "enslavement", but rather to liberty and utmost fulfillment: the Evangelion is then really understood as what it is: the GOOD message.
Not wearing habits merely points to a person, but not his religion. So occassions that may gave rise to interest in the religious life are therefore neglected.


Many religious - lay and clerics - seem to suffer under the illusion that anything pertaining to one's belonging to the Catholic Church would be like a wall which would stop others from speaking with them: as if the Catholic faith has to be "hidden" as good as possible.
A person who would refuse to talk to a priest who is visibly recognizable as such, would also not listen to an orthodox lay Catholic in "normal" clothes. The logic behind this thinking - if consequently thought out - must lead to a total refusal to even discuss or share with other the Catholic faith as this very faith would be likened to "a wall of division".
In reality - so it seems to me - the reason behind the refusal of wearing the habit or the Roman collar is either the lack of conviction or vanity.


And one may ask where modernity comes in? The modern world - especially in the West - is a relativistic, subjectivist society which is against any claims to objectivism. We live in a society of "political correctness" and of superficial unity. This modern world is not an ally of the Catholic religion: modernism is opposed to the Catholic faith. Now, this state of the world we live in today demands a lot of the Church which still has the mission to evangelize. How is the Church to evangelize in a world that stands diametrically opposed to the very truths that the Church safeguards and promotes? Certainly not by giving in bit by bit to modernism!

The solution is timeless: it was right in the ancient Church and is as perfectly right to the Church in these our modern days. The solution is to not only believe theoretically and partially, but to believe practically and totally: to live outwardly one's inner convictions. This matter of faith is can be compared to charity: it must be lived and expressed, otherwise it ceases to be.

For in the end, one can say: lex orandi et lex praedicandi = lex credendi.

Jews, Hell, Atheists, and Morality

Before I start, let it be made clear that the following statements are the product of my contemplation on certain issues. I claim not to be necessarily right, and certainly do not claim infallibility in what I write. I may be wrong, I admit. If there be found anything - also in my other posts - which is not in accordance to the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, then it should be known to all that it is obviously me who would be in error - not the Church - God forbid!


Now we all know that the teaching on the existence of an eternal hell is part of the Christian faith. With Jews, the issue becomes a bit different.

I should perhaps point out that when I speak of the "Jewish" concept in this blog, I shall be speaking of what I would term as "reactionary Judaism". This term I use to describe that community of God's chosen people which - to this present day - reject their own Messiah, Jesus.
Thus I use this term to refer to Jews who believe not in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In reactionary Judaism, hell - or rather Gehenna - is not eternal. It can be understood more along the lines of purgatory: a temporal process of purification of the soul through purgation of all that is evil in one's soul (purgatory is the cleansing from venial sins). Therefore - according to reactionary Jewish thought - no one will be eternally separated from God; everyone goes to heaven in the end: whether he likes it or not.

I was told that it could not be otherwise since the "Torah teaches that all creatures shall return to the Creator".


Before I address the aforementioned statement, I shall give my thoughts on why I find hell to be of necessity:

Heaven and hell are eternal consequences which bear testimony to objective Divine Law. If there is a Law, then there is punishment for its violation. The severity of punishment often affects how seriously we take a certain law or rule.

Now, within theology we have faith in an objective standard for morality. We firmly believe that morality itself is objective - Divinely ordained - and not subjective. Violation of the divine moral code constitutes grave sins.

Just think for a moment about atheism and morality: the notion of an objective, transcendent code of moral law is dismissed. Morality is thus subject to the Zeitgeist. In the system of subjectivism then, one cannot really say that something is truly good or evil. What is deemed evil/immoral by one, could be wholeheartedly accepted and even promoted by another. As each man can create his own "moral truth", this system then renders morality objectively meaningless. As one can twist it to anything one wants, the purpose of morality - which is to uphold that which is objectively good - fades away. It is then by necessity that a moral code is transcendent and objective: we are subject to objective morality, not the creators thereof with the power to arbitrarily alter it.

If morality is subjective, then - objectively speaking - riding one's bike is on par with multiple murder. If instead there exists an absolute and objective moral code, then multiple murder would always be wrong, regardless of one's subjective opinion towards such act.

Why did I even discuss this? I discussed this in an attempt to show that an idea which tries to equate things opposed to each other is intrinsically flawed. Riding a bicycle is not on the same moral level as multiple murder.

How does this connect to the eternity of hell?

Well, let us compare the two theologies:

Christians believe that the righteous shall be with God for all eternity, while the wicked shall be eternally separated from him (by their own choosing).

Reactionary Jews, on the other hand, believe that the righteous and the wicked shall spend eternity together in the presence of God. So an Anne Frank would be in the same place/state as an Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, etc. according to reactionary Jewish beliefs.

The difference should be clear here: one position proposes a clear division between what is good and evil, moral and immoral, while the other simply combines the two.

One could argue that the wicked - in the reactionary Jewish concept - are purified of all wickedness after death and thus becomes as the righteous in Paradise. One might even say that this is the same concept as in purgatory, so why even have an eternal hell? It is because of choice: only those souls free of mortal sin can be purified in purgatory for nothing unholy can be in the presence of the Divine. Those souls guilty of mortal sin - a rejection of God's love -cannot be purified in purgatory as they - unlike people guilty of venial sins (most of us are) which only wound our relationship with God - repudiate the relationship with God: a mortal sin is a rejection of God. Therefore, we can conclude that purgatory is not the same as the reactionary Jewish concept of purification; as the former entails man's freedom, while the latter totally dismisses it: all are predestined to heaven regardless of one's own choices.

It is therefore that I say that reactionary Judaism is - in a certain way - similar to Atheism:
Both propose an idea that "all will be sitting in the same boat" after death: be it utter nothingness (see Wisdom 2) or heaven.

I could actually make a list of problematic consequences that follow from the reactionary Jewish understanding of "hell":

1) If all men will eventually end up in the same place/state, then why did God even reveal Himself to mankind?
2) Why did God reveal a Law unto mankind?
3) Why is there given a "chosen people" to be "a light to the Gentiles"?
4) Why is God presented in the Old Testament as being very furious against the enemies of His plans?
5) Why does God punish those who rebel against his Divine Will?
6) Why Divine Revelation, why send prophets, why warn of dangers, why teach against "abominations" and "errors" - if these lead to no serious consequences?
7) Why religion, why faith?
8) Why morality?
9) What would happen to a Jew who one day decides to not only stop practicing his religion and observing the commandments of God, but also starts to work actively against his religion and to blaspheme God? According to reactionary Judaism, he would have to end up in heaven.
10) What of free will?
11) What is this life for when we all end up in heaven? Perverse entertainment perhaps?


I watched a video today wherein an atheist's path to apostasy from his former faith was triggered by a simple statement: "you know what you believe in, but do you also know why?"

Why would God reveal Himself and why would we believe? Neither would have any objective meaning since - in the end - all end up in heaven.

In a way, to suggest that there is no eternal hell, is to suggest a unification of that which is good with that which is evil, of that which is Divine with that which is unholy: this idea renders the concepts of "Divinity" and "unholiness", of "good" and of "evil" objectively meaningless.


In contrast, the Christian believes that we are created by God out of love, to be loved and to love eternally. God being love requires that his creation provides for the possibility of evil - without necessitating evil itself. This necessary consequence is made manifest in man's free will, his freedom to choose either good or evil. And we know that the world is not perfect: creatures - not the Creator - have introduced evil into the world: sin is born. Sin is what misses the mark according to Hebrew thought: something made void of its purpose and its meaning. So to choose evil over good, to choose not love is a sin: as God is love, to sin is to choose a path that deviates from the path of God. It is thus a choice which leads to separation from God. As per Christian understanding, this life is where we learn and then come to - by our lives - show God which path we choose eternally for ourselves: that which leads to Him, or that which leads away from Him. God then respects the choices we made using our free will and grants us what we want most for all eternity: if we have chosen anything above God, then we will be separated from God and given over to that state without love, i.e. hell, which necessarily cannot entail any happiness; if we choose God above all else, then we are eternally with love and thus also with happiness.

Note: we cannot choose to be with God without God's grace. One may understand this as the bond of love emanating from the Creator to His creation. To commit a mortal sin is to choose to oppose this love: it is not a "minor" offense, but a rejection of God Himself: since possibility is part of man's freedom, then one cannot argue that God would simply ignore such freedom all of the sudden. The moment freedom is taken away from our theology, is the moment love ceases to be; it is the moment that we have to ask ourselves about God's existence.


I also think that the material world and the happenings therein reflect aspects of the immaterial, the eternal: if then we are called to a life of holiness in this world, why then should it be totally irrelevant to the outcome of the life to come?

It makes no sense to me.

Christianity eternally separates good from evil, while reactionary Judaism and Atheism lead to an ideology which provides only for one final destination for both the good and the evil.

Orthodoxy (Contra Errores Schismaticorum)

Against the Errors of Schismatics

This blog entry is for an Anglican whom I have been trying to show the truth about Christian orthodoxy which is truly and fully realized only in the Catholic Church.

First, I would have to clarify what the Catholic Church is - as there are not a few protestants and other schismatics nowadays who claim to be members of the "catholic Church". The Catholic Church - in orthodox understanding - is a visible, doctrinally united Church under the supreme rule of the Roman Pontiff, the Pope.

As a second point, I would like to also make clear that my usage of terms such as "schismatics", "heretics", and the like do not indicate anything emotional on my part - for some could claim that these terms are based on hatred; on the contrary, I use these terms hoping to avoid any misunderstanding in terms of theological contents..
Any Christian who is not in communion with the Roman Pontiff is a schismatic.
Any Christian who rejects at least one doctrine of the orthodox faith is a material heretic.

But now let us move on to discuss the position of the Anglican - whom I will call ST in this blog entry - with whom I have been discussing the issue of orthodoxy for a few days.

He wrote to me:

"What has been established by the first seven ecumenical councils is all that is necessary to believe and is all one needs to believe in order to be a Catholic. I believe all of that so I am justified in calling myself a Catholic."

I have to point out again that he is - as other schismatics - misusing the term "Catholic".

Anyhow, ST claims to follow only the first seven Ecumenical Councils which would be:

1) Council of Nicaea (325): assisted by Bishop Hosius of Cordova being the Papal Legate
2) 1st Council of Constantinople (381): under Pope Damasus and Emperor Theodoius I
3) Council of Ephesus (431): presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I
4) Council of Chalcedon (451): under Pope St. Leo the Great and Emperor Marcian
5) 2nd Council of Constantinople (553): under Pope Vigilus and Emperor Justinian I
6) 3rd Council of Constantinole (680-681): under Pope Agatho and Emperor Constantine Pogonatus
7) 2nd Council of Nicaea (787): convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and presided over by legates of Pope Adrian I


Now, one may ask why ST chooses to accept only the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church. He reasons:

"I don't accept the councils outside of the seven Ecumenical ones because it wasn't the church as whole who agreed."

What he means by the "church as whole" is the state of the Church prior to the great schism of 1054 - though the schism was finally formalized after the vehement rejection of the reunion achieved in the Council of Lyons (1274) under Pope Gregory X (with the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, 500 bishops and more than 1000 other dignitaries).

His statements thus far already reveal the errors he has:

1) There are not only 7, but 8 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church prior to 1054:

The 8th Ecumenical Council is the 4th Council of Constantinople (869) under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil, which condemned Photius who unlawfully seized the Patriarchal dignity at Constantinople and even convoked a conciliabulum (irregular council) against Pope Nicholas. Photius was deposed and Ignatius restored as Patriarch of Constantinople.

2) Claimed adherence to the decrees of the first seven Ecumenical Councils is all that is necessary to be a Catholic.

3) The rejection of all other Ecumenical Councils of the Church due to an - still - informal schism (1054).


I believe that ST's first error has already been adequately addressed by pointing out that there had been yet another Council prior to 1054 which he forgot to claim to accept.

Error #2 can be more tricky. Though, it can be simply dismissed by pointing out the fact that the Albigenses themselves also claimed to be "orthodox" whilst holding the belief that there were two deities: the "evil god of the Old Testament" and the "real good God of the New Testament, Jesus".

It should be obvious to everyone who claims the title "Christian" for himself that it is necessary to believe that God the Father is good and is the same God as the Son. The Albigensian and Waldensian heresies have been condemned only after 1054. Does this now mean that these heresies are permissible as the "first seven" did not explicitly address these groups?

What about certain parts of Sacred Tradition such as the teachings on abortion, contraception, murder, etc.? Are these then permissible?

As Catholics, we persevere in the Tradition handed down to us from the Apostolic age (all major Christian denominations have abandoned the traditional teachings on the aforementioned issues, except the Holy Roman Catholic Church).

In fact, the reason for schisms and condemnations issued by Councils is rooted in the simple fact that certain Christians - regardless of the quantity - have abandoned the line of sound doctrine and Tradition:

"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6

With all this being said, it should be clear by now that adherence solely to the decrees of the first 7 ecumenical Councils does not suffice in order for one to be Catholic.

Error #2 contains yet another aspect which I attempted to show by not speaking of "adherence" to the decrees of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, but rather by speaking of "claimed adherence."

I used the latter formulation since the only Christians who truly adhere to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are Catholics (according to the orthodox definition, i.e. Roman Catholics).
I will point out later why this is the case.

Let us now move on to the 3rd error of ST's:

This error is one that is easy to refute. He claims that adherence to only the first 7 Ecumenical Councils is necessary because these were the only Councils "agreed upon by the whole Church".
One aspect of this error is already refuted by the refutation of his first error: there being 8 Councils prior to 1054.
The other aspect is the fact that what took place in 1054 was a mutual excommunication between Patriarch Michael Keroularios and Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida. The schism of the Eastern Orthodox from the Catholic Church was formalized only after the later rejection of the reunion achieved in the Council of Lyons in the 13th century.
Another idea to be considered is the fact that a schism does not "destroy" the Church, nor does it render the Church "invisible" as a type of "Hyper Ekklesia" (a terminology denoting the ideology expressed by schismatics claiming "we are all members of the spiritual catholic church even if there are doctrinal differences here and there"). Such position cannot be backed by any examples coming from the timeframe of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. As such, this idea cannot be claimed to be "orthodox" at all. Wherefore we now see that our friend ST is not being consistent in his ecclesiology: he claims adherence to the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, but promotes ideas foreign and even contrary to the faith of the Catholics of this timeframe. He often refers to the Nicene Creed to claim orthodoxy: this Creed states that "we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". The Creed speaks of the 4 marks of the Church:
She is:
1) one: affirming one faith, one truth without any doctrinal contradictions: to suggest that doctrinal condtradictions may exist within the one Church is to suggest that the heretics and schismatics have formally remained members of the Catholic Church and never were condemned, nor commanded to adhere to "sound doctrine". This idea would also be against Sacred Scripture speaking of a "time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:3).
Needless to say that the concept of a "Hyper-Ekklesia" totally contradicts the testimony of the Fathers.
Furthermore, the unity of the Church is even more stressed by the fact that she is the mystical Body of Christ. Christ is one and undivided. To suggest otherwise of the Church is to give a positive answer to St. Pauls question: "Is Christ divided?"(1 Corinthians 1:13).
2) holy: the Church is holy as she is established by Divine Right. Her members make up the mystical Body of Christ, the Lord. She is the gateway to heaven, the universal sacrament of salvation (CCC 774-776), for being the mystical Body of Christ, we must affirm to be also true of the Church what Christ said of Himself that "no man cometh to the Father, but by me" (John 4:16).
3) catholic: the Church is universal with no limitations of gender, nationality, skin colour, race: everyone can enter into the communion of the Church. Catholicity does not mean disorganization though. The universal Church is organized as the human body is organized:
"For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12).
4) apostolic: the Church is Apostolic: only those communities with valid Apostolic Succession can be called "Churches": which is why Catholics do not speak of protestant "Churches". While the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are called Churches in affirmation of their historical lineage and faithfulness to the sacraments, they are still not "the Church" which Christ Himself established upon Peter, the Rock.
further info: http://www.zenit.org/article-20090?l=english

A schism merely means the formal separation between the orthodox and the heretics. One cannot therefore argue that - because a large number of heretics have defected from sound doctrine - the Church is no longer existent. Schismatics had already abandoned communion with the Church proper long before 1054, yet ST still accepts the Councils that took place after such schisms: an example would be the Arian controversy or the schism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. What happened after the rejection of the Council of Lyons was that some - not all since there are Easterners in full communion with Rome called "Eastern Catholics" - Easterners rejected the unity achieved by the aforementioned Council and thereby defected from the Church. They have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. This act did not mean the "disappearance" of the Catholic Church.

By now we have seen that the logical consequences derived from ST's position are all erroneous and contrary to the orthodox faith. What I have demonstrated should suffice to show that ST's position is heretical. But simply showing something to be false is not my intention. My intention is ST's entry into the Catholic Church for the well-being of his eternal soul. For this reason, I will demonstrate what constitutes orthodoxy in the Christian religion:


I have one basic claim:

Communion with the chair of Peter, the Apostolic See, the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, the Pope, is what makes the Church orthodox.

I chose this main point as it is the one which all schismatics are guilty of not following.

Before I continue, I would like to remind the readers, especially ST, that it does not suffice to oppose a position in order to show the validity of one's own: one has to demonstrate that the opponent's views are evidently wrong and that one's own are correct.

For this purpose - as we are dealing with someone who accepts only the timeframe prior to 1054 - I will be using as main arguments those coming from that time.

Since ST affirms that the Conciliar decrees express the orthodox faith -with which I agree - my task is to show whence an Ecumenical Council derives its validity. And I will also show that communion with Rome, the Apostolic See was indeed the rule of orthodoxy. I will start with the latter point and then move on to the former:



I communion with Rome, the Apostolic See:

1) St. Iranaeus:

"it is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about." (Ad Haereses 3:3:1 [a.D. 189])

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul - that church which has the traditionand the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." (ibid.; 3:3:2)

St. Irenaeus spoke of heretics and uses Apostolic Succession to show why heretics are wrong since they defected from Apostolic Tradition. And as a general rule, he states that "all the faithful" must agree with the Church of Rome. This is only realized in the Catholic Church. All schismatics have abandoned communion with the Roman See.

further he writes:

"It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth." (ibid., 4:26:2)

compare these to the statements of the Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium (2nd Vatican Council):
"The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity." (Lumen Gentium #22)



2) St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with marytrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and desiring the evangelic and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold the Church in any way." (Letters 69[75]:3 [a.D. 253])

"And He says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed My sheep.' It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep feed. And although He assigns a like power to all apostles, yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly we should hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcpate itself to be one and undivided." (The Unity of the Church, 4-5 [a.D. 251-256])

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been apointed for them, by heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." (To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 [a.D. 252])

compare these with the statements from the Dogmatic Constitution of the 2nd Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium:

"In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, He put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in him set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion." (Lumen Gentium #18)

How come no other "Church" teaches this after the schism of the Easterners?



3) Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus wrote to Pope Leo I in the 5th century:

"If Paul, who was the herald of truth, the organ of the Holy Spirit, had recourse to the great Peter, in order to obtain a decision from him concerning the obeservance of the Law, for those who disputed at Antioch on this subject; with greater reason we, who are abject and weak, have recourse to your Apostolic Throne, that we may receive from you remedies for the wounds of the churches, for it is fit that in all things you should be first, since your Throne is adorned with many prerogatives."

of these prerogatives, Pope Nicholas I wrote to Emperor Michael in a.D. 863:

"the privileges of our See, which, received by Blessed Peter from God, and handed on to the Roman Church, are acknowledged and venerated by the Universal Church."



4) The 6th century Byzantine Emperor Justinian wrote to Patriarch Euphemius showing that orthodoxy meant communion with Rome stating that the Roman Pontiff was:

"the Head of all the most holy priests of God, and because as often in these parts heretics have arisen, it is by sentence of that venerable See that they have been brought to naught."



5) Speaking at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of the Church, the Council of Ephesus (431) which defined Mary as the Theotokos, the papal legate, the priest Philip stated:

"It is doubtful to no one, nay it has been known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the rince and Head of all the Apostles, the Pillar of the Faith, and the Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who, up to this time and always lives and exercises judgement in his successors. His successor therefore and Representative, our holy and most blessed Pope, Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this Synod to supply his place."



6) Pope St. Damasus (382):

"...We have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world compromise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound upon earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven'...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf od blessed Peter, by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious marytrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt, before he came to Rome, and where the name Christian was first applied, as to a new people." (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Collegevill, MN, Vol. I, pges 406-407)



7) Pope Boniface I (418-422 a.D.):

"Never was it lawful to discuss again any matter which had been decided by the Apostolic See." (Ep. 13)

"The institution of the universal nascent Church began from the honor bestowed on Blessed Peter, in whom its government and headship reside. For from him as its fountainhead did ecclesiastical discipline flow throughout all the churches, when now the culture of religion had begun to make progress. Nor the canons of Nicaea testify otherwise, inasmuch as they do not venture to make any regulations in his regard, seeing that nothing could be conferred that was superior to his own dignity, and knowing that all things had been given him by the words of Christ. It is certain, then, that this See stands, in relation to the churches spread over the whole world, as the Head is to its own members; from which Church whoso has cut himself off becomes an outcast from the Christian religion, since he has ceased to be in the same bonds of fellowship." (Ep. 14 to the Bishops of Thessaly)



8) Pope St. Leo the Great (440-441) [also venerated by the Eastern schismatics] wrote in his Sermon 4:

"...More profitable and more worthy by far it is to raise the mind's eye unto the contemplation of the most blessed Apostle Peter's glory, and to celebrate this day [the anniversary of his pontificate] in honor of him who was watered with streams so copious from the very fountain of all graces, that while nothing has passed to others without his participation, yet he received many special privileges of his own. The Word made flesh already was dwelling in us, and Christ had given up Himself whole to restore the race of man. Elements were obeying, spirits ministering, angels serving; it was impossible that mystery could fail of its effect, in which the Unity and the Trinity of the Godhead itself was at once working. And yet out of the whole world, Peter alone is chosen to preside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the Apostles and the collected Fathers of the Church; so that though there be among the people of God many priests and many Shepherds, yet Peter rules by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules by sovereign power..."



9) Pope Clement of Rome:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ...But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." (1st Epistle to the Corinthians 1,59:1 [c.a.D. 96])



10) St. Ambrose:

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" (The death of Satyrus, 1:47 [a.D. 378])

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion. " (To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 [a.D. 381])



11) Pope St. Gelasius (492-496 a.D.) in various letters:

"We do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by judgement of any bishops whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgement on its verdict, the canons providing that any appeal should lie to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeak against its judgement...[This See] ratifies each Council by its authority, and safeguards it by its ceaseless oversight, in virtue of its leadership (principatu), which the Blessed Apostle Peter by the word of the Lord, and which by common agreement of the Church he has always possessed and still retains."

"...The Apostoloc See has frequently had occasion, as it has been said, by ancient custom, even without any previous council, both of absolving those whom a council had unfairly condemned and of condemning without the presence of a council those whom it ought to condemn."

"...The canons...ordered it [the Roman See] to give judgement relative to the whole Church, but itself to have recourse to the judgement of none."



12) To formally end the Acacian schism (which lasted 35 years, from 484-519 a.D.), the Eastern schismatics were made to sign a reunion formula drafted by Pope St. Hormisdas. This formula was signed by over 2000 Eastern Bishops seeking the reconciliation to the Catholic Church after the Acacian schism:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the orthodox faith and to deviate in nothing from the laws of the Fathers. And one cannot pass in silence the affirmation of Our Lord Jesus Christ who says 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church,' etc. may not be ignored is proved by the result: for it is in the Apostolic See that the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate. Not wishing therefore to separate ourselves from this hope and from this faith, following in everything the laws of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies [such heretics as Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy the Cat, Peter Mongos, Acacius, and Peter of Antioch receive specific condemnation]...We receive and approve all the Letters written by Pope Leo I on the Christian religion, desiring to follow in everything, as we said, the Apostolic See; and proclaiming all its constitutions. I hope therefore to enter into communion with you representatives of the Apostolic See; it is there that the Christian religion finds its perfect solidity. I promise, then, that in future I will not recite in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries the names of those who have been separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, those who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See."

In 519 a.D. the Patriarch of Constantinople John II and his suffragan bishops were reconciled to the See of Peter on the basis of the acceptance of this same formula.



13) St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

"Number the Bishops from the very See of Peter, and observe the succession of every father [bishop] in that order; it is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not." (Psalm contra partem Donati, str. 18)

"The Roman Church, in which the Primacy of the Apostolic See has always been in force." (Letter 43, 7)

"You insane Donatists whom we earnestly desire to return to the unity of the Holy Church...What has been done to you by the Chair of the Church at Rome in which Peter sat and from which you have severed yourselves in mad fury?" (Epist. LIV, Ad Januarium, c. 1, and Contra epistulas Petiliani, II, 51)

"Many things more justly hold me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. I am held by the consent of peoples and of nations; by that authority which began in miracles, was nourished by hope, was increased by charity, and made steadfast by age; by that succession of priests, down to the present Episcopate, from the Chair of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection entrusted His sheep to feed; finally the name of Catholic holds me, which, not without cause, amid so many heresies, that Church has alone retained in such sort, that whereas all heretics wish themselves to be called Catholics, nevertheless, to any stranger who asked, 'Where is the meeting of the Catholic Church held?' no heretic would dare to point out his own Basilica or house." (Contra. Epist. Fundam. Manich., n.5)


A material heretic wishing himself to be called and accepted as a "Catholic" is not uncommon. You will find Eastern Schismatics, Anglicans, even other new-age protestants refer to themselves as "Catholics"; but as has been demonstrated by the 13 examples, to be Catholic is to be in communion with the Apostolic See, the chair of Peter, the Pope.
There are certainly more examples that can be given in support of this truth, but I believe these 13 to suffice - considering the fact there is no orthodox argument to the contrary.


Now, all I need to show is that a Council has to be ratified by the Pope in order for its decrees to be valid, legitimate, binding on all the faithful of the Church.


II the validity of Ecumenical Councils and the Pope:


1) The fact that all Councils which ST claims to follow have been ratified by the Pope or their representatives gives ST no orthodox argument against the position of the Catholic Church.

2) see I, 5 (the statements of the papal legate Philip)

3) see I, 6: the Apostolic See enjoys supreme authority by Divine Right, not by conciliar decree

4) see I, 7 regarding the canons of the Council of Nicaea

5) the Council of Chalcedon:

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ' We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to eb cast out. This instruction we must carry out." (Acts of the Council, session 1 [a.D. 451])

It is necessary to read the information provided in the following link as it shows how Pope St. Leo the Great - by virtue of being the Roman Pontiff, the Pope - refused to ratify "Canon 28" of the Council and thereby did not have any validity. This "Canon 28" was then struck out of the Conciliar decrees. This makes clear that conciliar decrees are not "valid" merely because a Council wrote them down, nay, they are valid only with the approval of the Pope.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

Pope St. Leo the Great stated:
"Resolutions of bishops which are repugnant to the holy canons defined at Nicaea...we rescind and utterly annul by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter, since in all ecclesiatical questions we defer to those laws which the Holy Ghost laid down through the three hundred and eighteen prelates, with a view to their peaceable observance by all bishops." (Epistle 105 to the Empress Pulcheria)

Another papal legate at the Council of Chalcedon, Lucentius, said without contradiction that Dioscorus "had dared to hold a council without the authority of the Apostolic See, which has never been done."

6) Greek historian Socrates wrote how Pope Julius (337-352) had charged Arianizing bishops with "the violation of the canons, neglecting to request his attendance at a Council, seeing thast, by ecclesiastical law, no decisions of churches are valid unless sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome."

7) Another Greek historian, Sozomen, noted that "he (Pope Julius) alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon, which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome is null."

8) Before the Council of Ephesus (431), Pope Celestine wrote to St. Cyril of Alexandria stating:

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself that authority of our See, and using our stead and place with your power (exousia), you will deliver this sentence with the utmost severity, that within ten days counted from the day of your notice, he (Nestorius) shall condemn in a written confession his evil teaching , and promise for the future to confess the faith concerning the birth of Christ our God which both the Church of Rome and that of your Holiness and the whole Christian religion preaches, forthwith your Holiness will provide for that church. And let him know that he is altogether removed from our body. We have written the same to our brothers and fellow-bishops, John, Rufus, and Flavian, whereby our judgment concerning him, yea, rather the divine judgement of Christ our Lord, may be manifest."

The answer of the Council to the directions from Rome was:

"...Being necessarily impelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy Father and colleague, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman church with many tears have arrived at the following sentence against him...this same Nestorius is deprived of the episcopal dignity and all sacerdotal intercourse."

Nestorius himself confessed in one of his final writings:

"It was the Bishop of Rome who was exercising the direction of the plotting of the Council of Ephesus against me." (Livre d'Heraclide, page 237)

9) St. Maximus the Confessor:

"How much more in the case of the clergyand church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issue in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate...even as all these things are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

10) St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) wrote to Pope Leo III:

"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

"Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sendign his synodical letters to the Prelate of the First See." (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

11) St. Methodius (brother of St. Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs, contemporary of the anti-Catholic Photius) stated in c. 865 a.D.:

"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Methodius, in N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999) p. 177)

12) The 6th Nicene Canon and the Papacy:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm




We have therefore now established two main points:
that
a) for someone to be orthodox, i.e. Catholic, it is necessary to be in communion with the Chair of Peter, that is to say , with the Bishop of the Apostolic See, Rome.
b) the validity of Ecumenical Councils depend upon the approval of the Roman Pontiff, thus it is the Chair of Peter which is the fountain, i.e. the source, of orthodoxy.

In accordance to point "b", Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council states:
"There never is an Ecumenical Council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's Successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such Councils, to preside over them and to confirm them." (Lumen Gentium #22)

While the Catholic Church in communion with Peter's Successors has continued to have Ecumenical Councils to - as evident in Tradition - combat the heresies of the ages and to uphold the orthodox faith, one may ask when the last time the Eastern Orthodox Churches convoked an Ecumenical Council and by whose authority? What of the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the evangelicals, etc.?
They all cannot be the Catholic Church for the simple reason that they have all defected from the unity cathedrae Petri, of the Chair of Peter. Since - as stated by the famous words of St. Ambrose: "Where Peter is, there is the Church."

What is then to be said of all those who refuse to return to the unity of the Chair of Peter, the unity of the Catholic Church? What is to be said of all schismatics?


St. Augustine of Hippo:
"There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism...There can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church...To start a schism from the unity of Christ, or to be in schism, is an immense evil." (contra Epistulam Parmeniani, II, 2; Contra Cresconium, II, 1, 5)

St. Irenaeus:
"The spiritual disciple will judge also those that work schisms; who are devoid of the love of God, considering their own advantage than the unity of the Church; and who for slight and trivial causes, rend and divide the great glorious Body of the Christ, and as far as in them lies, bring it to nothing. They speak peace, but work war; a straining indeed at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. No correction they can effect will compensate for the injury which arises from schism." (Ad Haereses 4, 33:7)


Now that we have established this, one may point to the necessity of being in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Every Christian should know the traditional axiom "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", outside the Church there is no salvation.

As St. Augustine of Hippo said:
"Salvation no one can have but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Catholic Church, he may have anything but salvation. He may have honor, he may have Baptism, he may have the Gospel, he may both believe and preach in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; but he can find salvation nowhere but in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariens. De Emerit.)

And St. Iraenaeus:
The Church "is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them...we hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come...Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons." (Ad Haereses III [a.D. 202])


Thus, by Sacred Tradition, we know that it is necessary to be Catholic to attain life eternal.
Wherefore the Second Vatican Council declared:
"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium #14)
This does not mean that one will be saved without being a Catholic when one is not convinced that Catholicism is the true religion while knowing of the Catholic Church.
The same Dogmatic Constitution explains the possible exception:
"those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." (Lumen Gentium #16)


We can therefore conclude that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull "Unam Sanctam")

"...It is a perfectly well-known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. and that those who are contumacious against its authority and the definitions of that same Church, and those who are pertinaciously divided from that unity of the same Church and from Peter's Successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the Vineyard has been committed by the Saviour, cannot obtain salvation." (Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidam)


To conclude, a couple words in addition:

It is well-known that not few schismatics have ventured to the task of misrepresenting the Church Fathers, trying to take certain quotes and statements out of context in order to justify their heresies and schisms. One thing remains clear though: while the Fathers' statements can be understood perfectly in light of Catholic tradition, the heretical views would propose the notion that either the Fathers were schizophrenic or they were highly inconsistent theologians.
Apparently, the Church Fathers were Catholic.


And now to ST. I have done what I was asked to do. I have offered - to my judgement - sufficient evidence for the truth about what it means to be an orthodox Christian, a Catholic.
I believe that the only way one could still refuse conversion is by simply ignoring all this without a good basis for one's own ideas, or to acknowledge this truth, but still reject it.

Let us then ask the Lord - through the intercession of the most blessed Mother of God, the Virgin Mary - to grant the schismatics - especially ST - the grace needed for their conversion that they too may possess the solid hope for life eternal.
Amen.

Beware of Pride! (to Apologists)

Pride (superbia) is - according to St. Augustine - "the love of one's own excellence".


Having engaged in a couple of inter-faith debates in the past myself, I can say from experience that the danger of falling into a prideful and arrogant attitude is very real and very great.

A Christian apologist should have the same attitude as a Roman Inquisitor: to be motivated out of compassion for the heretic and to only be content with the situation when the same heretic repudiates his errors and becomes orthodox.

At times though, we see Christian apologists on a quest to "destroy" their opponents. Ridicule becomes a more frequent part of the debates. So there comes a shift in the mission: instead of "defending the truth" with the hope to persuade one's opponent to embrace the orthodox faith, the prideful apologist then seeks to "crush" his/her counter-part in order to glorify himself in his intellectual achievements: the divine mission turns to a profane one.

Thus, the apologist becomes as the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:20:

"But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain."


Speaking of "strange gods", let us remember that the first sin was that of disobedience arising from pride: the sin of Satan. Pride can be seen as a form of idolatry as it is the "love of one's own excellence". Instead of glorifying God, one glorifies oneself. But why should one even glorify oneself? All that is good is from God. St. Augustine said that we humans own nothing aside from our sins.

Thus, let us all be humble and charitable.

Why evangelize?

Not few Catholics harbor the opinion that evangelization is not really necessary, that God would save those who "lead good lives" anyways.

Now, I will not discuss the salvation of unbaptized people. Instead I would like to show one reason as to why we should evangelize. There is the danger of hell - of course -, but as in our own lives, fear ought not to be the primary cause for our Christian lifestyle. To be a Christian primarily out of a falsely understood fear is something intrinsically disordered (1 John 4:18).

What is the real reason? The real reason is charity. This simple, yet so profound word sums up everything about Christianity. It also shows us why sharing the Gospel - through whatever means - has to be part of every Christian's life.

According to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, "to love is to will what is truly good for another". Connecting to this thought, there is no greater good than God, for God is charity (1 John 4:8, and as such, God is the eternal source of all which is good.

To be a Christian is to know God who is charity through Christ. To be a Catholic Christian is to be a partaker of Christ (Hebrews 3:14), a partaker of that greatest good imaginable, of charity itself.

"He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth." (1 John 3:17-18)

So how can we really - with good conscience - claim to be abiding in God's love if we choose not to share through the Gospel the greatest good, charity itself?

Is it not natural to have the desire to share our joys with other people, our neighbours? Is it therefore not appropriate to say that we - by dictate of charity - have to share that which is truly good with our neighbours, that they too may know of this charity in that truth which makes free (John 8:32)? And what greater joy is there than that which stems from charity?

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galatians 5:14)

Charity is the very core of the Christian faith. It is the greatest amongst the three theological virtues:

"And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." ( 1 Corinthians 13:13)

So, in full accordance to the greatest commandments - that we ought to love God totally above all else and to love our neighbours as ourselves (Matthew 22:37-40) - we have the obligation to evangelize; to evangelize not out of fear (for ourselves), but rather out of charity. If we truly love our neighbours as ourselves, then we will surely want them to know that greatest good which we as Catholics have come to known and are able to partake in through the Sacrament of Holy Communion.


The Evangelium Christi, the Gospel of Christ, can be summarized as the true testimony of true charity. Charity and truth, the two primary components of evangelization embodied by our Lord, Jesus Christ (John 15:12-14, John 14:6, 1 John 5:6). Wherefore, to evangelize is not to simply speak of any message, but to share with others the person of Jesus Christ. There are different ways of evangelization: Dominicans, the friars preachers, share the Gospel primarily through their charitable, orthodox preaching. Fransiscans, on the other hand, share the Gospel through works of charity especially amongst the poor. These two orders, with each having its specific charisma, show us that there are many different ways through which we - also as lay Christians, according to our personal talents - can truly and charitably evangelize.


A Christian who does not live according to the supreme principle of charity is living a disordered lifesyle. "He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is charity." (1 John 4:8)


"Grace be with you. mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus the Son of the Father; in truth and charity." (2 John 1:3)

How to know Divine Truth?

People who believe in "Divine Truth" often disagree when it comes to what it is and how it is found.

There are mainly two groups of people we can characterize: one is the group of those who follow - what they believe to be - Divine Revelation; the other is the group which relies upon what I would call gnosis, i.e. knowledge (such knowledge is attained with one's own abilities).

So one group of people believes that Divine Truth is God and that all truths we know about God are not attained with our own abilities, but rather are revealed to us by God. God is transcendent and thus cannot be the object of any empirial observation, not of any scientific tests. We therefore cannot know anything about Him unless He reveals certain things to us.
This group is one that demonstrates a bond of dependence between the creature and the Creator, between man and God. This bond is commonly known as religion. Such a religion cannot be without a system as the divinely revealed truths are seen as binding upon all believers.


The other group believes that one may find the way to Truth using one's own abilities. One is not dependent upon any type of deity - which is why this group is not necessarily theistic. Often times, people who belong to this group believe in an abstract and non-personal understanding of "Divine Truth". Many also try to reach "enlightenment" either through ascetism, self-discipline, years of studies, or meditation. A good example of adherents of this group would be Buddhists. This group is also one that may exist with or without a system. Compare a Buddhist monk to someone who follows no religion, but only his own "personal path".


The first group is always tied to a personal God. The second group includes a wide array of differing thoughts.

The most obvious difference between the two becomes clear when one thinks in terms of objectivity or subjectivity. The group which follows Divine Revelation believes in objective truths whsoe source alone is God who is the simple union of all complex truths. The people who follow the other group hold what they have come to realize as the truth. There can be those who claim to know what is right and those who claim that "each individual as his own path". The more common position is that of subjectivism and relativism.


Truth, however, is intrinsically objective. It does not rely upon opinions, but simply is. Likewise God is (He did introduce Himself as "I am that is"). Therefore, we can conclude that the second group is following an objectively flawed path.

Sedes vere vacans?

Is the seat really vacant?


This blog entry will be dealing specifically with the "anti-Vaticanum II" sedevacantists. Basically, I will try to refute this type of sedevacantism with a single argument: an argument based on logic.

Before we proceed to my refutation, let us first recall in our minds the claims of these sedevacantists. The most popular and central would be:

1) Vatican II is anti-Catholic.
2) All conciliar and post-conciliar (Vatican II) popes are heretical "anti-popes".
3) The "Novus Ordo" (ordinary form of the Roman Rite) is heretical.


These are the three basic points of these "traditionalist sedevacantists". It is perhaps relevant to some to also note that these three points are shared - in varying degrees - by many "traditional Catholics" (normally by those who are very close to formal heresy and schism).

So how will I now proceed? I could refute all three false claims - however I will not. There is sufficient orthodox Catholic information on the issue available online. I will however follow through the consequences that arise from the aforementioned sedevacantist points and thereby demonstrate the absurdity of such position.

If ponts 1, 2 & 3 are all true, then we have to say that every single Catholic who is in communion with the Popes connected to Vatican II (Pope John XXIII - Pope Benedict XVI) is by necessity also a heretic.

Sedevacantists surely are familiar with Pope Paul IV's papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
Here is even a link to it from a sedevacantist site: http://www.romancatholicism.org/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.htm

What is important about it? §2 and §5 (§5 i) tell us that the Church in communion with the Popes connected to Vatican II - according to sedevacantist thinking - cannot be the Catholic Church as it would be heretical. It would be some sort of an "anti-Church".

So far, so good!

Now the problem starts. According to Vatican I (an Ecumenical Council not rejected by this type of sedevacantists) the office of the Papacy is to be permanent:

Session 4, Chapter 2:

1. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain forever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Contents


So since the 3 points of these sedevacantists has lead to the necessary consequence that the Church in communion with the Magisterium is no longer the Church since it would be "heretical", the sedevacantists would now be the "real Catholics", but have not a pope.

The question then is: what on earth are they waiting for? If they already claim that (true) Catholics are heretics and that they are the real thing, then why do they not comply with the decrees of Vatican I - which they claim to follow - and provide for a pope? Certainly the Cardinals in Rome (in communion with Pope Benedict XVI) would also be deemed "heretical" and thus cannot be the ones to elect the "real pope".

Moreoever, why have they not already elected a "real pope" when the "widespread departure from the faith" (i.e. Vatican II - according to their ideology) began? Why even wait? This waiting is in itself an illogical act.

47 years have already passed since Vatican II was opened. Until now they speak of "sede vacante": the vacant seat (chair of Peter). Are they waiting for "heretics" to elect a pope they could like?

Clearly, their hesitation is a demonstration of a lack of faith in their own position. It seems plausible to me that the creators of this mistaken ideology have simply focused on an "anti-campaign" without being able to create a positive cause/basis for their own position. If this position defines itself through a negative and is existentially dependent on being that negative that opposes Vatican II, then it is a lost cause, a heresy. It bears the same attitude of the first sinner: that of rebellion (non serviam).

As I tell our protestant brethren: being ANTI is not enough.


When an idea is intrinsically flawed, it will reveal itself as an erroneous view when logically and consequently thought through - as in this case.


I pray that these separated brethren shake off the burden of this heresy and come back to the unity of the chair of Peter.

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII)