Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Commentary on Summorum Pontificum | Main | New Phone »

July 10, 2007


Marcel LeJeune

There is nothing new in the document. I posted on this already and stated that the media is already spinning it to make the evil Catholic Church look even worse.

Matthew Kelley

just printed it off for something to read this morning, i saw something about it on msnbc or some site, so i figured youd have a link. haha

Joe S.

I'm glad the CDF published this document. It shows that there is a real difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. As an Orthodox Christian, I sometimes get tired of hearing some of my Catholic brethren claim that our faith is identical and that the RC Church thinks that there is nothing defective in my Church and faith, therefore, we are just being stubborn by not being in communion with Rome, since we wouldn't have to change any of our beliefs. This is simply not true.

Each of us (RC or Orthodox) thinks that his own Church is the true Church of Christ and the other is not. I respect this honesty.


Great Document!


Shock Horror headlines:

"Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" - claims Vatican.

"Bible true" - claims evangelical pastor.

"Quran true" - claims mullah.

"Scientific method: best way to investigate empirical phenomena" - claims scientist.


The AP has the best scare headline so far:

Pope: Other Christians not true churches


ABC/AFP/Reuters: "Vatican hits 'wounded' Christian churches"

Charles R. Williams

I predict that this is the first of many clarifications to come concerning the correct interpretation of the teachings of the Council. The goal is to clarify just what the issues might be that now separate SSPX and others from full communion with the Church in the hopes that a reconciliation can be effected.

Thomas Dunbar

At first, I thought "Other Christians not true Churches" was just ungrammatical. But perhaps, given private interpretation and differing understandings of "Church" among Protestants, it's rather accurate.


So would a proper term for people who go to a Lutheran Church be "Lutheran community"?


Hartmeister: Yes, unless they're Swedish.


Joe S.: Don't get too excited. The document says that Union with Rome is the issue, and doesn't mention any other difficulties. The Catholic Church still views the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches in general as non-problematic, and encourages the Catholic Churches which correspond to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches to embrace their common traditions.

There's a real seperation, but from the Catholic side it is not understood as a seperation of Faith per se (and couldn't be, since the Catholic Communion contains the same traditions in its particular Churches if not as a whole).

Peace and God bless!


Here comes MSNBC with their dramatic headline:

Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’

I think the following Yahoo/AP article summed it up pretty well:

Pope: Other Christians not true churches


Later, PMSNBC will be doing a 3-part series titled: "Water Is Wet!"


Is the cafeteria part of the church?


Mark Shea summarised it thus:

It reiterates the teaching already reiterated by Dominus Iesus, that Protestant congregations are not true Churches but ecclesial bodies.

What Rome means is "Where there's no valid eucharist, there's no Church" because the Eucharist is what makes the Church the Church. What Rome does *not* mean is "Protestants aren't Christian. God hates Protestants. Only the Catholic Church is a true Church".

Protestant congregations are in real, but imperfect communion with the Church. That's because "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". If you are validly baptised, you are Christian. And, by the way, the Church *does* recognized non-Catholic bodies as true Churches (think "Orthodox", for instance). It's all about the Eucharist, baby. If you've got a valid one, you're a Church. If you don't, but you still adhere to the basics of the Creed, you're an ecclesial body.

... Exactly what Rome did *not* say is that the Catholic Church is the "only true Church". Never mind.

D. Martin

"There's a real seperation, but from the Catholic side it is not understood as a seperation of Faith per se (and couldn't be, since the Catholic Communion contains the same traditions in its particular Churches if not as a whole)."

DM: Great point!!!

Some Day

Sorry I didn't notice this Slave of Mary did not post his handle.


As reported today in Reuters


Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Protestant umbrella group Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), said the new Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult. Continued...

Huber said the new pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.

"The hope for a change in the ecumenical situation has been pushed further away by the document published today," he said.

The Pope is now two for two!

Clearly defining what is a church and not a church, and his defense of traditionalism and the church

God bless him

the warrior

ABC/AFP/Reuters: "Vatican hits 'wounded' Christian churches"

Let's burn the liberals to the stake.

the warrior

Our popey baby rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jordan Potter

Some Day blurted out this disastrous attempt at logic:

"God hates Evil, and Protestants are Evil, thus God hates Protestants."

No, Protestants are not "Evil."

Note the capital "E" that Some Day used, identifying Protestants as the very personification of evil, the very locus and origin of all that is contrary to God. Some Day has demonised and dehumanised Protestants -- all the easier to speak of their being converted into ashes, I suppose.

Contrary to the false, un-Catholic doctrine that Some Day espouses, Protestants are neither evil nor Evil. Protestants are human persons, and the human person is intrinsically good, because the human person is created by God who cannot make anything evil.

It is not Protestants who are evil. Rather, it is their erroneous beliefs that are evil.

Therefore God does not hate Protestants, any more than He hates anyone who He has created.

Some Day should take his Manichaean heresy back to wherever it is he found it.

Or perhaps he would like this syllogism:

God hates evil. It is evil to be a non-Catholic. Some Day believes some human persons are evil. Therefore Some Day is not a Catholic. Therefore God hates Some Day.

Doesn't feel too nice being on the receiving end of God's wrath, eh, Some Day?


Some Day:

How can you utter such things?

The worse I can see Protestants being are in heresy (though this might better apply to the Reformers than to later generations who might not know any better), but evil?

This is too extreme -- even for me.

Brian Walden

That was the vanilla of the vanilla (if I may coin my own phrase) of documents and yet the media acts like the CDF condemned Protestants to Hell. I guess that just shows how much the Church needed to reaffirm it's doctrine.

The document probably upset Catholics on both the theological extreme left and extreme right, which means it's probably right on. It seems getting out of San Francisco has done Cardinal Levada some good.

And lastly, on Joe S.'s comment: Each of us (RC or Orthodox) thinks that his own Church is the true Church of Christ and the other is not. I respect this honesty.

I couldn't agree with you more. If only the Christian Communities would issue statements explaining why they are the one true church we could get on with some real ecumenism.


Protestants are not in communion. That does not make them evil. Such comment reveals the ignorance and hatred of its author.


I'm betting Some Day was joking. You're pulling our legs, right, Some Day?


Shock headline: "Catholic Church Espouses Catholic Beliefs"

[fictional now...but give it time]



A serious question, meant in all honesty to be received charitably. You seem to be happy with the latest curial document on the Church.

In the past, you have proclaimed your extreme displeasure (I think that puts it mildly) over Vatican II's use of "subsists in" rather than "is" in Lumen Gentium. Were you satisfied with this explanation of that language? And I generally mean satisfied in the sense that LG did not effect a change in Catholic doctrine on the Church, rather than satisfied that it was the best choice of language to express the doctrine.


Esquire =^)

Some Day

I was being a bit extreme, all in good humor.
Thoug being protestant is grave evil.

But the adherants are not as guilty as the founders and "pastors".

I would apply that logic to the founders and those who obstinately hate the Catholic Church, because that goes to other extremes that are worthy of condemnation.

I was with some members of my community in habit and some Jehova's Witness came with a face of hate, but a satanical hate, seriously hating the habit and all it represents, cursing the Pope, Mary and the Holy Eucharist. Now that is not just a bit wrong, that is something to make any good Catholic indignant.
I felt like Elias at that momment. And then some idiot, who is his own pope, discussing things against Our Lady and then at the end saying we Catholics laugh at the Bible.

That is not what turnin the cheek means. They insulted something greater than ourselves and that is not innocent ignorance, that is a rejection of Truth in a radical way, and that deserves punishement here on Earth.



I sincerely hope you receive an answer to your question.

Take care and God bless,


I am a former anti-catholic, seminarian, fundie, pastor, baptist, etc.I am disturbed by "Some Day"'s callous consigning of my former compatriots to Dam*ation for their inculcated & instinctive prejudice against the Church.
Parsing "Some Day"'s invective, I grant SomeDay's general accuracy regarding definitions. I cannot challenge his experiences, since I was guilty of many such sins.
But I do challenge:
his words: "idiot" I recommend to you Matthew 5:22
his spirit: I urge you to meditate on Luke 9:53-56 especially verse 55,56
The Divine Mercy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is absent from your words here. It should not be this way.
I understand your hurt better than you might imagine, but mutual scorn, condemnations and excommunications exclude the command to call all to repentance.
I meet regularly with some of my old compatriots (the ones who haven't written me off completely), so I get the chance to experience it afresh weekly.
You might also wish to research the concept of "Disorder" and "Disordered" in Catholic Moral Theology for more considered arguments than "lesser good" equals "evil"... therefore...


Papal Primacy proceeds from the following three claims for Apostolic Succession, all of which are demonstrably false:
(1)Peter was the first to preach the gospel in Rome;
(2)Peter founded the Roman Church;
(3) As a result of his residence in Rome, Peter passed on his primacy to his successors the Popes, as Bishops of Rome.

Amongst the "Fathers of the Church" the Greeks far outnumber the Latins, and antedate them considerably.

The only intellectual leaders of any consequence in the Roman Church up to 400 CE –Hippolytus and Novatian – were both anti-popes. The true fathers of Latin Christendom came from Carthage, not Rome. Far from Rome being the “mother church” she was herself the offspring of the mating of the Greek fathers with the Carthaginian form of Latin Christianity.

The Roman Church may lay claim to have had a continual line of “popes,” but the indisputable testimony of history is that in the formative phases of Christianity (50-350 CE) there is not a single Roman Father.

As regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convened by the Emperor from Constantinople. At these Councils, where the 'Nature of God' was defined and determined for all generations, Latin bishops were numerically insignificant and made an insignificant contribution. For example, out of a total attendance of 318 at the Council of Nicea, the Latins could boast of only 7 representatives.

No prelate, priest or church in the East ever entertained any Roman claim to pre-dominance, and it was rejected by every bishop in the West until the "barbarians" destroyed the empire and Rome alone could maintain a bishop of any importance.


WorldNet Daily has a poll on this article. Surf on over theere and support B 16

The URL is:

God bless,


My wife just reminded me that
God Loves
God is Love
so just read 1st John since I am passing out reading requirements.
But I don't give the exam.
That is up to Someone Else.

Some Day


The least you can challange is "my spirit".

Now I can say that is sentimentalism to disagree with attachments to protestant friends. You need to be a radical Catholic to the point of if your mother becoming a protestant, you would cease to live with her, but only care for here and visit.

My spirit if it has errors, it is in being impetous and maybe a bit of self-love in responding with fire.

But in no way is the doctrine or spirit wrong.
To say that would denounce tons of saints who devoted their lives to fighting the errors of heresy in the Inquisition.

Now, I certainly wish their conversions, esspecially those who left due to the errors on this side of the Tiber. Like I've said before, if you don't hate evil, than your love of Good is timid and ends in trechery.

Some Day


And the schismatics can be added to the lists of people that need some dire correction.

Russia has too many splendors to remain schismatic.
I can't wait to see papal keys on the Kremelin.

Greece as well.

In fact, everyone who does not adhere to the One True Religion, worshiping God in the Holy Eucharist, honoring Mary, Mother of the Lord King of Hosts and the Pope, Vicar of Christ are enemies of God and in some way shape or form be ridded of this world.


The Roman Church may lay claim to have had a continual line of “popes,” but the indisputable testimony of history is that in the formative phases of Christianity (50-350 CE) there is not a single Roman Father.


Jesus promised in Matt 16 that he would give the keys to Peter; he promised the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the context of Matt 16 makes plain that there would be successors of Peter

What is key here is understanding that first of all, we’re talking about the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is the one to whom the keys of the kingdom is communicated and the way that that happens, we see in the Book of Acts Chapter 1 when Judas died, it was Peter who made the rules for how this would happen -- basically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, where Peter (if you look at Acts Chapter 1 right around verses 19, 20 and 21) even quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 and he puts those two verses together and he says we’ve got to choose a replacement for Judas and then they did so.

In other words, Peter makes the rules as far as how we’re going to go about electing bishops in the future, the successors of the Apostles. But, that was put into place before Peter dies, obviously, so he could have successors and we have a 1st Century testament to this in St. Clement of Rome who in Par 44 of his work called the Epistle to the Corinthians – this is Pope Clement, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, by the way – he tells us, if I could remember, I don’t have it in front of me but I think I can get it almost – he says, “The Apostles knew through perfect foreknowledge that strife would arise amongst the Office of Bishop. Therefore, they made arrangements that other approved men should succeed to their ministry so that after they have died, other approved men could succeed to their ministry.”



There, you have the idea of Apostolic succession; not only in the Scriptures in Rom 10:14, for example, and Acts 1:20, but historically we see St. Clement of Rome talking about it. We see in fact lists of the Bishop of Rome that go all the way back. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyon – I think it’s book 3 chapter 3, as I recall, of his work called Against Heresies – he lists the Bishops of Rome all the way back to Peter; from the Bishop of Rome from the time that he was alive in about 177 AD.

We have various lists from different historians like Eusebius of Caesara; we have St. Augustine; we have others who give us the lists of the Bishops of Rome all the way back to St. Peter.


Re-affirmed! We are not as other men are. And certainly not as other women!

Brian Walden

I have some questions regarding the discussion between Some Day and Catholic Wayne.

It's clear from the Gospels that we must pray for our enemies. It's also seems to me from the Psalms that some people are indeed our enemies/evil and that it's proper to pray to God to that they will receive the punishment they deserve. So how do we determine the difference between those who oppose us because of ignorance and those who are truly our enemies (obviously there's no hard, fast rule, but what are some guidelines)? And can you legitimately pray both that God will punish your enemy and at the same time pray for your enemy's conversion? If not, and these are mutually exclusive, how do we reconcile the Psalms (sometimes called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit) with the Gospels about Jesus?

Mary Cunningham

Wasn't the Pope just stating the (theologically) obvious? Assuming the Church is actually the body of Christ in the world, it is indefectible as He is. Other churches simply do not possess the same teaching authority, and the Vatican is the pre-eminent Christian teaching authority in the world.

Edward Norman wrote about this in his "Authority in the Anglican Communion", a lecture he gave in 1998, where he concluded that basically the Church of England was not the heir to this tradition. (Norman himself became a Catholic in 2004).




It all depends on one's intent. Why is one praying to God for the punishment of one's enemies? Is it so that God's greater glory may be established? That is what David had in mind. Think about punishment within the Church. What purpose does excommunication serve? It punishes the offender by excluding them from the community, but for the greater purpose of drawing them (and others) authentically back into the community.

If your intent is to see your perceived enemy burn in hell, you are probably safest not praying for their punishment. (Except to the extent that you recognize your real enemy to be Satan, whose proper abode is hell, and who you may legitimately desire to remain there.) But as for who, specifically -- other than Satan -- is your true enemy, I think you are safest leaving that ultimate judgment to God.

You are always safe praying for the conversion of your enemies. And I believe that you may at the same time pray that your true enemies be punished, if you recognize the harmony (paradoxical though it may seem) between those two positions and legitimately seek to serve God's greater glory, leaving it up to Him to determine who your true enemies are.

To answer your other question, I'm not sure it's ever necessary to actually try to determine whether someone is simply ignorant or truly your enemy (to a point). If you have taken care to be charitable with someone (often we don't get past that first step), have calmly and dispassionately tried to reason with that person, and the other person refuses to listen, act reasonably, or act charitably in return, there is a point at which you are best to simply walk away (shake the dust off your feet, so to speak), and leave that person in God's hands with your prayers.

Sorry for the rambling answer. Hope it helps anyway.

Brian Walden

Thanks Esquire, good answer.


Esquire posted with an Esau snicker as always!!):

"In the past, you have proclaimed your extreme displeasure (I think that puts it mildly) over Vatican II's use of "subsists in" rather than "is" in Lumen Gentium. Were you satisfied with this explanation of that language? And I generally mean satisfied in the sense that LG did not effect a change in Catholic doctrine on the Church, rather than satisfied that it was the best choice of language to express the doctrine"

Esquire-Cant you see the holy father has come full circle since the days he helped draft LG? He has come to realize that he actually may have been in error or even misled by his friends of that time like Rahner and Kung whom he no longer associates with?

And you are not correct in that LG did change catholic teachings on this subject, or at least made them more vague and muddy or else why would there have been an outcry to this day over the language? You can read this anyway you want to, but the Council of Florence, which you and Esau deny, was clear and concise on this subject and LG and the Decree on Ecumenism made it vague as it pertains to the salvation of non Catholics, and lets leave baptism of desire for another discussion

So all the Holy father is correcting this vague teaching and making it clear that these Protestants, whom Esau was once one of and now hopefully fully converted to Catholicism, that those that espouse these errors are indeed "wounded" as the outcry from the Protestants is loud and clear to this Vatican document, or else they would have embraced the document as they so whole heartedly along with every other non Catholic religion so openly embrace Vatican II (Jimmy-I am not on a hobby horse as this was thrown to me and I am responding!!)

As Reuters reported:

"The document, issued by Benedict's successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, aimed to correct what it called "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, like Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully."

Deo Gratias B16!!



good point. Whatever punishment we pray upon our enemies, it is clearly not eternal damnation. Perhaps a fitting prayer is sufficient punishment for them to mend their wicked ways?

In any event it's very important to recognize that many of our "enemies" are not aware of their situation, and the utmost compassion is called for.

God bless,




Just to clarify. On what grounds do you claim that I deny the Council of Florence?

It seems that you are not willing to afford me the same charity I afforded you, but are rashly ascribing positions that you simply assume I must hold.

For the record, I willingly accept and submit to all legitimate Ecumenical Councils of the Church.

But the real clarification I would like is with respect to this latest curial document. It seems that you are saying that it is, in effect, a lie, because it says that Vatican II did not change any doctrine on the Church, but rather "developed, deepened and more fully explained it." You claim that is a lie because what is really going on is that Pope Benedict has realized the errors of Vatican II and therefore the errors of his former ways, and that now, even though he says these nice things about Vatican II, he doesn't really mean them.

I am quite certain I must have misstated your position somehow, but I have attempted to accurately restate it to the best of my ability. I would therefore welcome any corrections you would like to make so that we can get a true picture of your position. But if you do agree that I have accurately restated your position, how can you be happy with Pope Benedict lying about what he believes and believed?

(And for what it is worth, I absolutely agree -- and think Jimmy would as well -- that your response to these questions is not any type of "hobby horse" on your part. I think they are legitimate questions raised by the document itself, and I am simply curious to know if the document has caused you to rethink any of your previously stated opinions.)



LG and the Decree on Ecumenism made it vague as it pertains to the salvation of non Catholics, and lets leave baptism of desire for another discussion

So all the Holy father is correcting this vague teaching and making it clear that these Protestants

I think ultimately this is John's main point. Frankly, if it were not true, there would be no need for this document. In all honesty, the various interpretations of this statement in LG has resulted in much confusion.

Is there any problem with such a textual criticism of a Church document even if it's authoritative? I don't think so.

Now, it's clear that some of the authors of the Vatican II documents had different ideas than the Church teaching (including perhaps, Fr. Ratzinger, certainly Frs. Rahner and Kung), and may have intentioned the vagueness, that does not make the document "wrong" as such, but it may suggest imprudence. We as Catholics are free to believe that such a document was imprudent, and free to believe that Fr. Ratzinger may have been in error in the way that he participated in it, as long as we are respectful, which i think John has been today. I don't believe we are free as Catholics to believe that the Vatican II documents are doctrinally in error.

God Bless,




I am being very charitable but feel you and Esau have been trying to bait me

I think the document released by the Vatican is quite clear and my opinion means little

God bless our Pope



I question whether John is being "respectful," as you say, when he flatly accuses me (without any basis) of denying Ecumenical Councils. Nor is that "very charitable" as John describes himself.

Now I would submit that both you and John have described this document very differently than it describes itself.

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council[1]. Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"[3]. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention[4].

Stated succinctly, Pope Benedict has stated that Lumen Gentium clarified and deepened the doctrine on the Church. John (apparently with your agreement) has maintained that Pope Benedict doesn't really mean that. In numerous past entries, John has vociferously (to the extent that term can accurately be used to characterize a blog posting) maintained that LG in general and the "subsists in" language in particular effected an actual change in the doctrine on the Church.

I repeat. I was genuinely curious to know whether John accepted Pope Benedict at his word that the "subsists in" language did not effect any change in the doctrine on the Church. It seems clearly as though he does not, but does "accept" that Pope Benedict has "seen the light" and now recognizes the erroneous nature of the language used in the Vatican II texts. That position, I would submit, cannot be reconciled with the actual text of the latest curial document.

In closing, there is a large difference, I would submit, between correcting a vague teaching and correcting erroneous opinions about what the actual teaching is. John has always agreed with the erroneous opinions about what LG actually teaches, and quite astonishingly does not realize that it is his erroneous opinion that is being corrected in this curial document (not Pope Benedict's).

For what it is worth, I agree in principle with what you have said may legitimately be believed about the imprudence of an authoritative text. I have, in fact, never argued that point with John. And it in reality has very little, if anything, to do with my questions above or John's answers.


I would also submit that I have overused the phrase "I would submit." Makes for quite tiresome reading.

Oh well.


but the Council of Florence, which you and Esau deny

When did I ever deny an ecumenical council???

Again, with the lying and deception.

How very traditional Catholic, indeed!


Please tell me that you do not share the same heretical opinions as John regarding the Second Vatican Council?

Among many others here, Esquire and Inocencio have expertly demonstrated time and again with much corroborating evidence such as several Church documents and the historic teachings of past councils that the documents of the Second Vatican Council do uphold Traditional Church teaching and, as any valid council, hold doctrines free of error.

As then Cardinal Ratzinger effectively put it:

Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.

Furthermore, if you were to read John's comments regarding his gloss on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, it would be made clearly evident that he had not read at all its 16 documents -- only perhaps those few excerpts he has obtained about them from schismatic sources.



Towards the end of the first century, an upsurge of factionalism in the congregation at Corinth caused a divisiveness and resentment that resulted in widespread embarrassment to other Christian congregations. The Roman congregation wrote a letter, which bore the name of Clemens, to the Corinthian congregation pleading that they settle their differences and reminding them that the essence of the teachings of Jesus was love and humility. There are absolutely no grounds for identifying him with the Clement of Philippians 4:3.

The Catholic Church would have us believe that:
(1) Clement was the fourth Pope to inherit a universal primacy as Bishop of Rome;
(2) From his position of primacy in Rome, he wrote an authoritative letter to Corinth with instructions that they do certain things;
(3)Because of his primacy and the "tone of authority" of his instruction, the Corinthians acquiesced to his directions.

If Clement's letter is read fully, we will see that the real situation was more like this:

(1) Clement put his name to a letter, "From the congregation of God at Rome to the congregation of God at Corinth;"
(2) We know nothing of Clement except what is told in the letter;
(3) He is not named as head of the church in Rome;
(4)Clement makes his appeal to the Corinthians on the values of self-abasement, humility and love, as did Jesus in his sermons;
(5)The churches are a figure of derision by all and sundry because of the widely known dissension in Corinth;
(6)The letter refers to both Peter and Paul twice and to Apollos once;
(7) It differentiates between the ministries of Peter and Paul in a way that precludes Peter was ever in Rome, in a similar way that Paul's letters do.
(8) Nowhere does Clement assert the primacy of Rome over other churches.
(9) Many times it refers to "Jesus Christ the High Priest by whom our gifts are offered," and nowhere is Jesus considered to be God;
(10) Jesus is always presented as a man of God.

Only a determinedly preconceived motive could possibly see in Clement's letter proof of Peter's residence and death in Rome and the supremacy of the Roman Church over Corinth asserted.

But for the letter which bears his name, the world would know nothing of Clement. If one cares to consult the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia and its list of the first ten popes, one might be surprised by the lack of information. They are little more than fanciful constructions.



Just what sources are you actually getting this

It seems you have not consulted the full works of/or even engaged in a comprehensive study of Patrology.

Again, you neglected the list of Roman Pontiffs provided by St. Irenaeus of Lyon of the 1st Century as well as the lists given by Eusebius of Caesara or even St. Augustine.


vynette: Try reading the Early Church Fathers. (Ireneaus would be a good place to start).They list the popes from Peter down to their own days. They identify Clement as the third successor of Peter.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Pope Clement commands them.

"...nowhere is Jesus considered to be God." You have to do extremely selective reading to come to that conclusion.

Speaking of "a determinedly preconceived motive..."


Well, there you have it vynette. You've pretty much taken all the wind out of our sales. Jimmy, what say you just shut her down, as we're all just obviously kidding ourselves with all of this popish nonsense?


"Therefore you shall write two little books and send one to Clement....Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty."-Hermas, "The Shepherd", AD 140

"...the succession 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 tradition and 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." Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", AD 180

"In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith." Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" AD 180


"...the Church of Rome, where Clement was ordained by Peter." Tertullian, "The Demurrer Against the Heretics", AD 200


Of couse, a full demonstration of the falsity of Apostolic Succession through Peter would take a much more lengthy discussion that that allowable on a comments thread. However, the evidence is available to all interested parties from reliable sources such as the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia and other authoritative works all bearing an Imprimatur and Nihili Obstat.

Just to give one example. An authoritative Roman Catholic textbook, "A Popular History of the Catholic Church" by the acclaimed Church historian Msgr. Philip Hughes, has this to say on the subject of Peter's residence in Rome:

"...The precise date at which the Roman Church was founded we do not know, nor the date at which St. Peter first went to Rome. But it is universally the tradition of this primitive Christianity that St. Peter ruled the Roman Church and that at Rome he gave his life for Christ in the persecution of Nero." (p14)

Hughes goes on:

"...About the origins of Christianity in Rome we know nothing. It is already a flourishing church in 56 AD when St. Paul refers to it. Three years later he arrived in Rome himself, a prisoner, for the hearing of his appeal to Caesar." (p17)

"...St. Peter first appeared there apparently some three years later, about the time St. Paul, acquitted, had left the city." (p18)

Contrast these statements, taking particular note of the words 'know nothing,''tradition'and 'apparently' with the following excerpt from the Roman Catholic Encylopaedia article "Peter."

"It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course in martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman Capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.

"The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter. St.Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies."

The above article is certainly illuminating: although it assures us that Peter's sojourn in Rome is "an indisputably established historical fact," it cannot say when Peter arrived, how long he was there, what he did there, who he worked with there, or when he died there.

Regarding Clement - From the Catholic Encyclopaedia article "Apostolic Succession" we find that "Of the life and death of St.Clement nothing is known..."

And from another Catholic Encyclopaedia article "Pope" we learn that:
"...Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head."

So while the apostle John is still alive, the Roman Catholic authorities would have us believe that Clement, whom the Roman Catholic church claims is the third Pope after Peter, was asserting his universal authority over the church of Corinth from Rome. Reflect a little on this...

There is no doubt that the Roman church has derived immense propaganda benefits from its situation in a city that gave its name to an empire. But Rome was the capital of the Empire only until 330 CE, when the new capital was set up at Constantinople in the East. Ravenna was the seat of government and capital of Italy from 404 CE until the middle of the eighth century. (Constantinople remained the capital of the empire until 1453 when it fell to the Ottoman Turks. It was from Constantinople, and not until the sixth century, that the emperor Justinian nominated the bishop of Rome as having ecclesiastical pre-eminence).

The apostle Paul was responsible for taking Christianity to Rome. Amongst the Greek speaking community of Jews who lived in the foreign settlement outside the walled city, he founded his “congregation of the regeneration”. There is no evidence that Peter assisted him in this work. The tradition that Peter founded the Roman church was unknown in Rome in 100 CE. A century later, however, the tradition was firmly established.


I see that vynette will simply ignore inconvenient facts, like the ones I quoted. Such a one is not interested in the truth. Indeed, such a one is the enemy of the truth, due to having "a determinedly preconceived motive".


"So while the apostle John is still alive, the Roman Catholic authorities would have us believe that Clement, whom the Roman Catholic Church claims is the third pope after Peter, was asserting his universal authority over the church of Corinth from Rome."

Because he was and he did, as my quotes from the Fathers show. Don't you feel silly posting that *after* my quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian?


"The apostle Paul was responsible for taking Christianity to Rome." Evidence? There was already a Christian community there when he wrote his letter to the Romans about the year 57, and there is nothing in the Bible (or any non-Biblical source that I know of) to say that Paul was in Rome before the year 60.

"There is no evidence that Peter assisted him in his work.The tradition that Peter founded the Roman church was unknown in Rome in 100CE(sic)."

"She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greeting; and so does my son Mark." First Letter of ST. PETER, chapter 5, verse 13. "Babylon" was a code-word the early Christians used to refer to Rome. St. John does the same in Revelation.

Hey, maybe Peter didn't know where he was! After all, he didn't have vynette to tell him that he wasn't in Rome!

Mary Kay

Just skimmed and what jumped out at me was that vynette is trying to use Roman Catholic sources to disprove Roman Catholicism.

Does anyone else thinks that's a bit odd?


Mary Kay,

it is absolutely, I was going to point out to vynette, that if the Catholic Church was a deceiver, and so powerful as to hide the deceit, surely she would have suppressed the documents vynette claims prove it to be so from her very own approved encyclopedia.

God Bless,


Tim J.

vynette, did I miss something? I saw nothing in all your posted snippets that does the least damage to Roman Catholic claims of Apostolic (Petrine) succession (or anything else).

There is no evidence at all - secular or sacred - to support your idea that Paul first carried the faith to Rome.

Even if someone DID "beat" Peter to Rome with the gospel, so what? That makes no dent whatsoever in Petrine succession, or in the constant tradition that Peter was bishop of Rome and was martyred there.

Was Paul promised the "keys to the kingdom"? Was Paul the "rock" upon which Jesus said He would build His Church?

"Who got there first?" simply has no bearing on the discussion.


When I said: "The apostle Paul was responsible for taking Christianity to Rome" I meant that Paul, as opposed to Peter, was the one who personally preached the gospel in Rome. Of course, Rome already had an established Chistian community, "...all over the world they tell of your faith" (Rom. 1:8), but the New Testament is silent about who founded it, and when.

Paul had long cherished a wish to preach the gospel in Rome (Rom.1:10, 15:23) and received his instruction to do so in a night vision (Acts 23:11). Paul's Roman citizenship by birth gave him the right of appeal directly to Caesar in any dispute over which he felt aggrieved. It was precisely because governors Felix and then Festus would not make a decision after two years of "open captivity" that Paul appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:12).

When Paul eventually arrived in Rome some time after 60 AD, it was to have his appeal heard by Caesar. He is the only apostle recorded in the New Testament as having travelled west of Greece. Paul was greatly heartened when a group of Christian converts came to meet him as he approached the outskirts of Rome (Acts 18:15).

Paul was placed under "house arrest" for about two years while awaiting trial. During this period, visitors freely came and went and Paul wrote and received many letters (Acts 28:15-31). After he had settled in a house for which he paid, Paul requested a meeting with the leaders of the Jewish community apparently to discover their attitude towards him. The leaders assured him they knew nothing to his discredit as they had not heard from Judea. They expressed a wish to know more about Paul's "sect" as it was spoken ill of everywhere (Acts 28:21) so a meeting was arranged at which an exchange of views would take place. At no time was Peter, the apostle to the Jews, ever mentioned.

On his second visit to Rome some years later, again on trial, Paul said: "...only Luke is here with me...all forsook me" (2 Tim 4:11-16). He asks Timothy to come to him and to bring Mark with him.

If, as Roman Catholic tradition encourages, Peter was nearby, why didn't Paul on either of his two visits to Rome, make some reference to him? If Peter had established the Roman Church, why no recognition of this by Paul or the Chistian congregation in Rome? If it was Peter's mission to take the gospel to the Jews, why did the Jewish leaders of Rome have no knowledge of Peter?

In Paul's letters to and from Rome - Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Phillipians, Hebrews? and 2 Timothy - he mentions numerous friends and helpers; in Romans alone almost 30.

Proponents of the "Peter in Rome" tradition often assert that he is not mentioned by Paul because of some residual animosity between the pair. Paul had some years earlier in Antioch strongly disagreed with Peter, as he also had with Mark and his uncle Barnabas. Yet Paul asked Timothy to seek out Mark, who had been with Peter in Babylon, and bring him to Rome. These men occasionally expressed sharp disagreements, but where the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth was concerned, they buried personal differences and spoke with one voice. In fact wrangling within congregations was often a major topic of concern for them.

In the Roman setting, no mention is ever made of Peter by any person, whether directly or indirectly, for the simple reason that Peter was never there.

Mary Kay and Matt,
It may be a "bit odd" to use Catholic sources to disprove Catholic claims but the fact is that these documents can be checked and re-checked by all and sundry, if they have the will.

No, I don't feel silly at all. Any quotes by fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian are based on later tradition only - they have no basis in historical fact - and were usually raised in the context of battles against unorthodox/heretic/gnostic doctrines.

As for Clement, the third? or fourth?supposed "Bishop of Rome," scholars have pointed out that it would not have been possible to appoint anyone as the "Bishop" of Rome because, at the time of Clement's letter (circa 100 AD) such a hierarchical structure did not yet exist either in Rome or in Corinth. A full discussion can be found in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article "Bishop" which begins with the words: "The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy..."

The alacrity with which the Roman Catholic authorities assert the figurative use of "Babylon for Rome" in 1 Pet. 5:13 suddenly, and amusingly, disappears when it comes to the Book of Revelation where commentaries and footnotes bend over backwards to confine the same figurative use to pagan Imperial Rome only, or to evil cities generally.

Tim J
As you rightly said, it is a constant tradition that Peter was Bishop of Rome and was martyred there. But I have already pointed out that this tradition was unknown until circa 170-180 AD.


vynette reaffirmed my 7/7/07 6:30PM post. Thank you.


Tim J

I agree with your 9:06 post

Peter was promised the keys and Rome was never even mentioned in any of the 4 Gospels as being important as far as I can recall from my readings

Whether Peter or Paul got there first is interesting of course, as I have spent time in Rome and visited the roads traveled by Paul, and Paul did do a better job of documenting his travels and it is much thanks to him that the church is where it is as he basically converted the pagan world-but I dont see the connection one is trying to make above


In the Roman setting, no mention is ever made of Peter by any person, whether directly or indirectly, for the simple reason that Peter was never there.

How can you come to this foredrawn conclusion all based on your evidently lacking, not to mention, careless study of this subject matter?

Talk about a "determinedly preconceived motive"!

I hope you are not so careless with research in your professional life as you are here.

Just a word of advice, your reasoning is quite fallacious in that the assumed absence of the evidence does not actually prove your conclusion.

The Fact that you are IGNORANT of such evidence does not prove your unwarranted conclusion.

Tim J.

" ...this tradition was unknown until circa 170-180 AD."

That is not a statement you can back up with any evidence. You can't infer that since Paul doesn't mention him, Peter was never in Rome. That is just incredibly sloppy thinkin'. I mean, I know you WANT to believe that, and so you sift everything through that filter, but a dispassionate look at the evidence will not support your statements.

"Any quotes by fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian are based on later tradition only - they have no basis in historical fact". So, when the evidence fails to support your forgone conclusion, you dismiss it out of hand? How convenient for you.

I know... I used to believe the same things.


Various ad hominem statements - sloppy thinking etc - have been used to dismiss my arguments. But surely assertions to the contrary, without any evidence whatsoever could be similarly described.

If any commenter here can provide some "dispassionate" evidence that Peter was ever in Rome based on something more substantial than post 170 AD traditions of the fathers, please do so.

Even the fathers had differing opinions concerning the "rock" of Matt 16:18. For some the "rock" was Peter; others thought that the "rock" was Jesus; yet others that the "rock" was the profession of faith.


Cite one early Church Father who stated that the Rock was other than Peter. Show us the quote.

As for "something more substantial", I quoted St. Peter's own letter stating that he was in Rome. Vynette chose to ignore this inconvenient fact, proving me right in what I posted yesterday.

I'm done.



On the off chance that you're actually interested in discussing the question, Peter, Christ and the profession of faith as the rock are not mutually exclusive.

Let's start with Christ. He is THE rock, no question. But Christianity is both a mediated and a participatory religion, and Christ freely gives Himself to others, in many and various ways. To Peter, he clearly gave a participation in his "Rock-ness," not for Peter's sake, but for the sake of the flock Peter was to shepherd.

Peter is not the Rock to the exclusion of Christ, he is the Rock because Christ is the Rock and chose to have Peter participate in His Rock-ness.

With respect to the profession of faith, it is not an abstract profession of faith. It is Peter's profession of faith. You can't separate the profession of faith from Peter any more than you can separate Peter from Christ.



Cite one early Church Father who stated that the Rock was other than Peter. Show us the quote.

There were many, of course, but all the papist conspirators in the second century destroyed their work, and all of the hard drives have since been wiped clean.

Sloppy thinking indeed.


Sorry, Esquire. Being the square that I am, I have a lot of trouble accepting circular reasoning. But you're right, of course. Mea culpa.


Various ad hominem statements

Uhhh, excuse me, but what I mentioned here:

"The Fact that you are IGNORANT of such evidence does not prove your unwarranted conclusion."

...was actually not an ad hominem but points out what's called the fallacy of ignorance, which I dearly hope you are acquainted with given your background.

The fallacy of ignorance is exactly what I mentioned; that is, just because you are IGNORANT of the evidence doesn't actually prove your position.



Rather than sidestep bill912, why don't you answer the question?

With respect to 1 Peter 5:13, where the author says he was "at Babylon" do you believe that "Babylon" refers to:

(a) Babylon,

(b) Rome,

(c) Some other place, or

(d) No place.

I know that you might think it is sloppy of me not to offer another alternative, such as "none of the above" but I have thought it through as hard as I can, and I think those four options cover the waterfront.

Of course, it is also possible that you believe that St. Peter did not write Peter's first letter, or perhaps that it was not that Peter who wrote it. Or maybe you think St. Peter was just lying when he said he was "at Babylon." In that event, you could freely choose (b) and still have no evidence that St. Peter was ever in Rome. Or even at Rome.

But assuming that you believe St. Peter really is the author, and that he was not lying, I am just curious where you think he was when he said he was "at Babylon" (since that is obviously "no evidence" to you that he was in Rome).


Not to open another can of worms, vynette, but since we're on 1 Peter 5:13 anyway, when St. Peter refers to "my son Mark," do you think he was referring to:

(a) his biological son named Mark;

(b) his spiritual son named Mark;

(c) his daughter Mary;

(d) none of the above.

On the off chance that your answer is (b), do you think it would have been okay for Mark to refer to Peter as "father"? Just curious. Doesn't prove anything, I know.


Just skimmed and what jumped out at me was that vynette is trying to use Roman Catholic sources to disprove Roman Catholicism.

Does anyone else thinks that's a bit odd?

It's admirable. Just as you should argue with a fundamentalist from the Bible alone, because it is a source your opponent accepts, and so you argue from the same premises.



I was thinking the same thing.

What was "odd" to me, though, was how she refers to Roman Catholic texts and persons as "authoritative" or "acclaimed," as if we should trust her judgment about them.


It was posted by Esau in his response to vynette, whom by the way I do not agree with:

"The Fact that you are IGNORANT of such evidence does not prove your unwarranted conclusion."


"The fallacy of ignorance is exactly what I mentioned; that is, just because you are IGNORANT of the evidence doesn't actually prove your position."

Do you always need to bash people and use names such as "Ignorant" and such other condescending words when you are having a discussion?

And aside from that Esay, please admit it Esau, as you yourself have never known or even been to a Traditional Mass but seem to have so much hatred for it, as you are instead a die hard liberal bent on the destruction of our church and this past week has been torture for you!!!

The following proves your lies:

On July 9 at 7:22PM on Commentary on Summorum Pontificum thread you posted:

"I have found some Trads rather elitist.


I can certainly understand this.

The first time I attended the Indult Mass, there were those folks who were indeed snobs.

Yet, when I observed the reverence and beauty of the Traditional Latin Mass when celebrated, I could care less of the Snobs that were there. I wasn't there for them. I was there for the Lord.

When the priest who celebrated the Mass retired, I ended up attending the Novus Ordo. Although, admittedly, there were hardly any such snobs as those I found at the Traditional Roman Mass, I did find some liberals whose behaviour were just as despicable."

You are calling "Trads" elitist, like you are not the most nasty elite person calling people "Ignorant" at the drop of a hat and all other names, and lying about attending an Indult!!

Then on the same thread at 5:40PM you posted, while admitting earlier you had only been to (1) Indult mass, but now saying that due to the "retirement" of the Indult priest you started attending the Novus Ordo!!!:

"Some Day,

About the Professional musicians, when I attended the Indult way back when it was offered, there were those there that donated their talent and time to the Church.

It was some of the most heavenly, most sacred music I've heard by far for a Sunday Mass. Yet, though these were actually professionals, they didn't even give a thought of monetary compensation.

Though, when I had to start attending the Novus Ordo because the Indult priest retired, I heard some of the most awful music there was.

In the latter situation, those musicians should've paid me to listen to their crap!"

Gee-Do you have to use the word "crap" Esau????

You are just such a contributing source of information!


And aside from that Esay, please admit it Esau, as you yourself have never known or even been to a Traditional Mass but seem to have so much hatred for it, as you are instead a die hard liberal bent on the destruction of our church and this past week has been torture for you!!!

John, John, John. Stop it. It's not becoming (or respectful or charitable, for that matter).



I am tired of the nonsense and name calling

It should stop-dont you agree???

He calls "traditionals" snobs and then calls vynette whom I have never seen post before "Ignorant" time and time?

Charity Charity Charity


as you yourself have never known or even been to a Traditional Mass but seem to have so much hatred for it, as you are instead a die hard liberal bent on the destruction of our church and this past week has been torture for you!!!

Thank you for more of your lies, John.

Actually, I have been celebrating.

By the way, a Traditional priest I know can attest to the fact that I am, in fact, a staunch advocate of the Traditional Mass (as my past comments on this blog clearly do corroborate, which you, again, purposely neglect and, furthermore, distort); however,I am one who DOES NOT advocate Protestantism disguised as Catholicism like you clearly do!

Do you always need to bash people and use names such as "Ignorant"

My using the word "ignorant" in that context wasn't name-calling; it was a description of the fact that "she did not know" of such evidence.

In fact, the words I used were ones that came from a textbook that describes all sorts of fallacies such as the one I described in my subject comments.

You are calling "Trads" elitist

What a despicable attempt to try to make Traditionalists hate me.

You are making it appear that I was calling ALL TRADS elitists when clearly, in my comments, I was referring to select people from my Indult Church who were actually snobs. Unlike you, I don't generalize folks, as you have done with Protestants and ex-Protestants, calling folks like Scott Hahn and other Protestants converts such horrible names because they were once Protestant and, therefore, they are evil regardless of their faithful conversion to the Catholic Faith.

Gee-Do you have to use the word "crap" Esau????

So, indeed, you are a "wolf in sheep's clothing" as you like to call others here. You actually LOVE Rock-n-Roll, Hippie Novus Ordo Mass Music!

Also, crap is better than the word you used to call me several times, as I can recall -- remember when your posts to me wherein you referred to me as an A _ _ HOLE?

By the way, in all actuality, I have a contingent of traditional priests, two cardinals and a bishop who can attest to my character that I am, in fact, a Traditionalist myself. Just because I am not a Rad Trad like you doesn't make me any less of a Traditionalist.

Why would I be any less a Traditionalist?

Just because I am somebody who believes in and faithfully adheres to Pre-Vatican II catechism that was passed down to me where I know, in fact, and faithfully acknowledge the Authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Authority given to him by Christ as Successor of Peter and not by folks who purposely disregard a 2000 year old traditional Catholic teaching (not to mention, scriptural) about Petrine Authority, and even goes to the extent of calling a VALID Successor of Peter an Apostate and even excommunicates him?

At any rate, the opinions of somebody who covers the Seat of Peter with viscious insults, lies and mere calumny and, in addition, declares him an Apostate is one I could care less about.

The only thing I do care about is the error you're spreading regarding Traditional Catholic Teaching.

In that sense, you are more harmful than all the liberals and heretics combined together!


while admitting earlier you had only been to (1) Indult mass, but now saying that due to the "retirement" of the Indult priest you started attending the Novus Ordo!!!:


I had written dozens of posts in the past to you where I made it clear that I used to attend the Indult Mass and that I only stopped attending when the priest who celebrated it retired.

I even provided links in my past posts to a website where people interested in attending the Indult Mass can refer to in order that they may see if one is available in their area.

I guess Inocencio was right all along about somebody's reading comprehension.


Like I said, some of the extreme conservative Catholic groups to whom I used to pray with were big into being their own Pope.

This, perhaps, may be said of Rad Trads and Schismatics.

However, this cannot be said of those attending Catholic churches that celebrate approved Traditional Latin Masses and are loyal to our Holy Father.

The parish I used to attend in the past was such a church until the priest that had celebrated the Traditional Latin Masses then retired. It was so beautiful.

That's why though the church was several miles away from where I used to live, it was such a joy to attend it and fully experience this truly pious, reverential celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was celebrated in the past.

For those interested in attending such Catholic churches, please see the following website:


Mass Listings:


Posted by: Esau | Jan 26, 2007 9:00:05 AM



GOD BLESS YOU for not! Certainly, God has given you the grace to continue in the Church in spite of these apparent trials of faith.

I have attended the Tridentine rite when it was possible for me to do so at a very distant parish until the priest there retired and so I can see why you find such tremendous beauty in it, and why you might hold such a strong opinion for it.

I just am very nervous having my children exposed to these teachings today as they are so different that that of my parents or even myself who was born right at the end of the council

Also, I can see from my own perspective why you might fear such an imminent departure from the authentic teachings of the Catholic Faith by many of the Faithful with all the abuses that are out there these days stemming from rogue clergy who, more times than not, might submit (better yet, 'surrender') to the "popularity vote" rather than submit themselves to the actual Truths of the Catholic Faith!

But, at the same time, there are decent, faithful clergy out there as well. Like anything, there is both the good and the bad and so it is with individuals, and so you can't assume the worst of all clergy.

Now, I’m not asking you to trust them and I don’t think anybody is asking you to trust them in terms of whether or not their going to be perfect in this regard. Because there are always human beings in these positions who are not yet "glorified", there are always going to be mistakes made and that’s something that has to be taken into account.

Now, if the question is can you trust the bishops apart from their individual human failings then the answer to that is yes you can.

The reason for that is because it is not them that you are trusting; it is Jesus who you are trusting.

Jesus is the One who established the Church and who gave the Church leaders.

It’s very clear in Scripture. He did not simply establish us a Church that’s everybody with no leaders. He very clearly established a hierarchy.

This is something that’s stressed repeatedly in the New Testament and we’re told in the New Testament to obey those who are over us in the Lord.

Consequently, it’s not individual people that we’re trusting when we consider the overall structure of Catholicism. It’s Christ that we’re trusting because He is the One who established it. It’s His promises that back it up.

In individual cases, yeah, sure, individuals will sin. They will mess things up, including occupants of high ecclesiastical office.

But, if you look at the individuals who mess up, it will deprive you of the assurance that Christ meant you to have by establishing the leaders of the Church in the first place. You cannot allow individuals to obscure your vision of what Christ intended for the Church including you as a member of the Church.

Posted by: Esau | Nov 7, 2006 9:34:31 AM



I agree that there is no call for name calling and nonsense. I hope you will agree that I have not called you any names. Nor, to my knowledge, have I ever accused you of anything that you would disagree with. You have falsely accused me several times (stating that I deny ecumenical councils being the latest), and I hope in the spirit of charity you will now stop.

For what it is worth, my earlier questions to you were not an attempt to bait you. I thought (perhaps foolishly) that Pope Benedict's explanation regarding the continuity of thought between the Church's traditional doctrine of the Church and Lumen Gentium might have caused you to rethink your position.


Some Day:My spirit if it has errors, it is in being impetous and maybe a bit of self-love in responding with fire.
You embrace those faults as if they were virtues. That is evil. Evil within you.
But in no way is the doctrine
Incomplete and blinded.
or spirit wrong.
Perhaps your implementation is incomplete because of your cherished sin.
You are called to be an Erasmus, a Francis, an Anthony.
Not a condemning Judge

Now, I certainly wish their conversions,
Do more than wish. be holy humble. and suffer in prayer for their souls.
Like I've said before, if you don't hate evil, than your love of Good is timid and ends in trechery. You cannot define, measure your love of Good by how much you hate evil. that is Satan's deception. A complete Love of Good is always sufficient, for God is Good, and He is infinite.

The first thing I challenge is "your spirit"
Since you obviously haven't considered the passages, I'll post them for you.
Matthew 5:22But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Luke 9:53-56 especially verse 55,56
48And said to them: Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the lesser among you all, he is the greater.
49And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.
50And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.
51And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.
52And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him.
53And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem.
54And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?
55And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.
56The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.
Some more points:
Charity is not sentimentalism.
Hating evil should also include the evil within your own soul. Think about this: might your lack of Compassion for the enemies of the Cross make you their favorite antagonist because you do not care to communicate the fulness of Christ to them. You fulfill their caricature, resonate with their hate, and you do not bless those who curse you. They are in Grave sin. Weep for them in prayer, asking for God's mercy on them.
Everyone will be judged for clinging onto the evils within them, and for the resulting tragic loss of souls.
Also, remember that Matthew 7:22,23 applies to more than protestant preachers: 22Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

You have likely been scandalized by wishy-washy Catholicism. The natural behavior that reacts to scandal is always not of God and is evil. Rather,God calls us to prayer and holiness and loving, humble sacrificial intercession for all the souls involved.
You...WE are called to a strong heroic Catholicism that suffers for the lost and implores God for His saving mercy upon those who so gravely sin against Him. You... WE are called to be a Stephen and a Paul and a Silas.



I apologize if I made an accusation at you that may have not been true but I am just being extra careful not to get into discussions that can get into name calling with one particular person whom I just defend myself and do not instigate such, as well as "hobby horsing", though I do think one has to discuss these 16 documents if one is going to discuss the church, but I shall do so carefully and with charity

We are all allowed to disagree even with the Pope to some extend or else why would there be forums such as this, but to start calling people Idiots and Ignorant, Rad Trads, etc-it just leads to no where and then the entire threads get into a name calling match



Re: "...What was "odd" to me, though, was how she refers to Roman Catholic texts and persons as "authoritative" or "acclaimed," as if we should trust her judgment about them."

It is not my judgement, it it the judgement of the Roman Catholic Church that the Catholic works I have quoted are "authoritative" and "acclaimed". As I have already said, these works all bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, meaning that the Church officially regards them as "free from error."

Re: "my son Mark". I don't offer opinions unless I can adduce supporting evidence. We have no way of knowing whether "my son Mark" is the biological or "spiritual" son of Peter so speculation is pointless.

Re: "Rather than sidestep bill912, why don't you answer the question?"

Very well then -

After the crucifixion, Peter's whereabouts are stated in the Bible to be:
Palestine (Acts Chs. 8-12)
Syria (Gal. 2)
Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13)

Centuries before Jesus was born, the nations of Israel and Judah had both been defeated in war and much of their populations deported to the East: Israel by the Assyrians circa 700 BC and Judah by the Babylonians circa 600 BC. Many Jews did not return from Babylonian exile and their descendants were still there at the time of Jesus. For example, Hillel, the great Jewish sage of Herod's day, was a Babylonian by birth and Philo ("Legatio ad Cajum," § 36) recorded that a large number of Jews were still resident in Babylonia. [It is important to note that Babel, (Babylon) was the name of a city as well as the province between the Euphrates and the Tigris where they most closely met.]

As well as the Jews of Babylon, Josephus, a contemporary of both Peter and Paul, recorded that "...the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates even till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers...: (Ant. XI V 2).

So, east of Jerusalem there was a substantial number of both Jews and Israelites who had never heard the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. Peter, being an apostle to the circumcised (Jews), had every reason to travel EAST with the "good news" to the dispersed brethren of both Israel and Judah while Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, travelled WEST to Greece, Asia Minor and Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church lays claim to Peter's presence in Rome on a single biblical reference in 1 Pet. 5:13: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark."

1 Pet.5:13 is the ONLY biblical "proof" text that the Roman Catholic Church can adduce in support of their claim.

Official Roman Catholic publications proclaim with one voice that when Peter made reference to his physical location in "Babylon," it was in fact a cryptic reference to the city of Rome. It is inferred that Peter did so in order to avoid the possibility of bringing down persecution upon the local congregation in Rome. The Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures states that Peter wrote his first letter in the period between Paul's first and second captivity in Rome, i.e. between 62 and 64 AD, yet Nero's persecution did not begin until August 64 AD so why the necessity for secrecy? Paul openly referred to Rome in his letters to and from that city.

In contrast, the author of the Book of Revelation does use cryptic language to draw an analogy between the destroyer of the first Temple (Babylon) and the destroyer of the second Temple (Rome), which he names as Babylon the Great, obviously because there was a reason to be cautious at the time of writing.



Neither the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur stand for "authoritative" or "acclaimed." For your benefit, the Church generally regards as "authoritative" texts which are issued by the Magisterium. General rule of thumb, most texts you will find on the official Vatican website are authoritative to at least some extent.

As for "acclaim," you might start with the writings of the saints that the Church has canonized.

As for answering the question, you put down a lot of words, but I couldn't find anywhere an answer to the actual question. I'll paraphrase it for you again.

What do you think Peter was referring to when he said that he was "at Babylon"?

(Hint: to answer that question, you won't have to discuss at all what the Catholic Church teaches, or what Catholic commentaries -- which you obviously don't regard as authoritative -- have to say.)

And for the record, the Catholic Church does not claim Peter was in Rome simply on the basis of Scripture texts, but on Tradition supported by the weight of the historical evidence.



I accept your apology, and appreciate the olive branch. I agree that the Vatican II documents should be discussed (among others), and as I've said before, I don't believe that you are being a "hobby horse" by doing so in the present context.

You are allowed to disagree with the Pope to some extent, I have very carefully attempted to lay out to what extent several times before. My initial engagement with you, many moons ago, was not over your disagreement with the Pope, it was over you calling him and Vatican II heretical, among other things, which I assume is part of the name-calling from which you will refrain.




May I make two suggestions.

First, please read the following explanation of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. It is very important to have a proper understanding of these terms.

Second, please understand that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an authoritative source, declared by Pope John Paul II to be "a sure norm for teaching the faith". If you would like to know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches that should be your primary source, even if you don't agree with its teachings.

My only question for you is what authority do you give yourself to discard documentation and evidence that contradict your conclusion that Peter was not in Rome?

Take care and God bless,


Mark Shea has it right. "news flash: Pope is Catholic"

Why the uproar?

For the sake of reunification seeing the separated brethren as not only individually connected to the church, but in ecclesial communities, is step forward. Suppressed orders (Franciscans, Jesuits) have been brought back in before.


Mark Shea has it right. "news flash: Pope is Catholic"

Why the uproar?

For the sake of reunification seeing the separated brethren as not only individually connected to the church, but in ecclesial communities, is step forward. Suppressed orders (Franciscans, Jesuits) have been brought back in before.

As to the other Lutheran who posted, hey, it always was "The evangelical movement of the Augsburg Confession of the Catholic Church" not a separate Church as if Christ has more than one bride.


My initial engagement with you, many moons ago, was not over your disagreement with the Pope, it was over you calling him and Vatican II heretical, among other things, which I assume is part of the name-calling from which you will refrain.


Very nicely handled!

God bless you!

John has resorted to name calling several times in past posts. To suddenly present himself on this thread as the epitome of charity is atrocious and misleading.

However, in the spirit of your charitable post above, I will not bring them up yet again.

Though I still cannot fathom how using the term "ignorant" is actually name-calling.

The author of the academic textbook that I referred to above actually used the same term when speaking about the fallacy of ignorance; that is, just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn't actually prove your point.

What an awful professor! I guess he was calling all those who were reading his books such detestable names!



We have all had our moments, and it is no secret that I have in the past openly called for John to be banned from this site. But everyone can change their behavior, and from what I have seen John is making a decent attempt to dial back the rhetoric.

The points he makes from time to time are well worth discussing, and if he will do so calmly and rationally, I would welcome the opportunity to do so without unnecessary rhetoric from any side of the fence.


with one particular person whom I just defend myself and do not instigate such

You know that this is a lie.

There are several of your past posts wherein you often attacked me in threads that had nothing to do with you, where even the conversations I and the other commenters were having had nothing to do with you.

I'm so tired of your lies and deception.

Just quit it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31