House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sent several fiscal 2024 recommendations to the House Appropriations Committee, including one that would relocate the FBI to Huntsville, Alabama.

The Ohio Republican gave Rep. Kay Granger, Texas Republican and the Appropriations chairwoman, the list of requests that had been generated from the work of GOP lawmakers on Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Mr. Jordan suggested that the best way to rein in abusive federal law enforcement agencies is to eliminate any funding for the FBI that is “not absolutely essential for the agency to execute its mission.”

“We ask that the Appropriations Committee include language in the Justice Department appropriations bill prohibiting retaliation against FBI whistleblowers, including by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to pay the salary of any Justice Department or FBI employee who is found to have retaliated against a whistleblower,” Mr. Jordan wrote.

Make America Great Again is an political slogan used by many conservatives over the last 7 years. I have yet to hear someone say what year or years they're talking about.
The history of this country is at it's birth Europeans created Laws making them white with privileges and people from the larger continent of Africa black with disadvantages. Laws giving whites the right to own another human as property. They enforced these Laws with extreme violence and white society's acceptance.
Many of these discrimination Laws lasted till the late 1960s. The bible teaches kidnapping a person to sell them is a sin worthy of death to the seller and buyer. We as Christians know most of our forefathers weren't true men of God by owning theses kidnapped humans. The secular world standards holds Abraham Lincoln as the greatest American, but biblical standards would view Lincoln different. From his writings we clearly see Abraham Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves for some godly moral reason, he was a white racist. Racism/hate is the opposite of love and God is love. Our forefathers and society practiced the opposite of loving your neighbors and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. We did have a few true God believing and decent people back then that spoke up, but as a whole we failed miserably.

In our country conservatives have been on the wrong side of our moral history, slavery, Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, lynching laws, Civil Rights, women suffrage, child labor laws, Voters Rights, Hitler and his white supremacy policies, the list goes on. So conservatives have been on the wrong side of our moral history almost 100% of the time.

I love this country, I see it's gotten better and believe it can be great.

But can anyone who believes America was great tell us what year that was?

This movie came out July 4. It's based on a true story of one piece of Tim Ballard's work hunting down sex traffickers and the like and capturing/arresting them, after he'd been working for at least a decade with the Department of Homeland Security.

Login to view embedded media
I haven't seen it because I can't handle the subject matter. It's too upsetting for me, but I think it's important to have this out. As they say, shine a light on the darkness. Somehow find a way to help these children.

What is also disturbing and horrible is the main stream magazines and news slamming on this story, saying it was made up, says Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard are QAnon, conspiracy theorists. No matter that it's a true story. I don't know if you all have ever listened to Jim Caviezel speak, whether as a guest speaker on important matters of God and Christianity (albeit from a Catholic perspective, but still), and his deep faith. There's no doubt he's a devout Christian.

In any case, I was wondering what you all thought and has anybody seen this movie yet? Thanks in advance.

After Church of Scientology officials learned in 1991 that a 16-year-old religious worker claimed to have been sexually assaulted, they failed to report the allegations to police and instead arranged for the girl to marry her abuser, according to a lawsuit unsealed last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The complaint against Scientology leader David Miscavige, recruiter Gavin Potter and three church entities alleges that the organization created a culture where sexual abuse was enabled by policies written by founder L. Ron Hubbard.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a woman identified as Jane Doe, who said Scientology officials facilitated Potter’s sexual abuse after he convinced her as a teenager to remain in Scientology’s full-time workforce called the Sea Org. She is now in her late 40s.

Due to policies regarding sexual contact between Sea Org members, the lawsuit alleges that Doe and Potter were given the choice to go to a prisonlike work camp for five years or be married. Because a judge in California would have had to sign off on the marriage of a minor, the lawsuit alleges that Doe’s “port captain” arranged for Doe and Potter to travel to Las Vegas to be married.

The plaintiff in the unsealed lawsuit is one of the women who sued Scientology and Miscavige in 2019 on claims that church officials stalked and harassed them after reporting to Los Angeles police that they had been raped by actor and Scientology parishioner Danny Masterson. That lawsuit is ongoing. Last month, Masterson was convicted of two counts of rape in the related criminal case and is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 4.

What was an apostle in the Bible?

There were three categories of apostles in the Bible. The first referred exclusively to the Twelve, Revelation 21:

Strong's 652: From apostello; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ.

G652 appears 80 times. It is a rather common word.

The second category included some prominent disciples commissioned by the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:

And they were recognized as such, Acts 14:

The third category included some lesser-known and generic apostles who were sent forth with orders by churches, Berean Literal Bible, 2 Corinthians 8:

Are there still apostles today?

Sure, 1 Corinthians 12:


Apostles are one of the higher gifts of the Holy Spirit, But be warned. Paul wrote in the follow-up letter, 2 Corinthians 11:

You need to test their claim. Who sends them? What are the signs to prove that they are apostles?

Personally in Toronto, I encountered a man who claimed to be an apostle. He was sent by a church/denomination. I am not under that particular denomination's authority. I have no obligation to accept his authority. Neither did I accuse him of being a false apostle.

Please pray for a 10 year old boy who is having surgery this week. The surgery involves a heart valve. Please remember him and his family in prayer. Thank you.

I'm Corey.
I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts, ideas, views, concerns, and sharing what can inspire, help, encourage, and build up.
The forum looks good. Especially in Dark Mode.

I woke up and she is in the the process of passing. She is very old. Please pray it’s easy for her.

For a technical definition of soul, see What happens to your soul when you die?.

When does human soul life begin?

American Standard Version, Genesis 2:

It seems that when a fetus receives a (detached) breath from God, it becomes a living soul.

English Standard Version, Ecclesiastes 11:

Psalm 139:

Ensoulment:

When does consciousness begin?

According to this Scientific American article:

Elizabeth was pregnant for about half a year, Luke 1:

Wiki:

When does the human soul begin?

It seems to be somewhere between the time of conception to the time of full-term birth. If we don't know whether a fetus has soul life, is it okay to terminate it?

Listened to a conversation on YouTube today between two men, one said something that was quite illuminating to me, that many of his thoughts and emotions could be said to be that of demons, and not him exactly, something his priest had told him if I remember correctly. That it made it easy for him to just laugh it all off in a way and return to a good conscience. I would love being able to do this.

Perhaps you guys could share some of your wisdom on this, as I do sometimes find myself quite overwhelmed with the things in my head. Would good theology be, that we're completely free, that these thoughts aren't our own in some sense? Or are they indeed ours, but we're still washed clean by the blood of Jesus? How do you guys 'protect' your conscience and stay joyful? How do you get going, and not let the mood hang downtrodden for too long, after such puzzling thoughts, if they do ever occur to you?

Should or is it acceptable for a Christian woman to lay hands on a sick man and pray for God to heal him?

Exodus 20:13 New International Version:

LXX:

Is aborting a baby murder?

The author of the Didache (1st century AD) thought so, Didache 2:


Lightfoot translated the Greek into the English "abortion":


Elsewhere in Numbers 5:

Did God cause abortion in this case?

I think the issue is more complex than simply the two extreme positions of pro-life and pro-choice. See When does soul life begin in the womb?.

I've been battling with this question for a long time now and I can't seem to find a definite answer to it. I can pull out any number of verses that speaks of the mind and the character of a person that denies the sovereignty of God and rejects the Messiah. I can find an equal amount of verses that speak to the fellowship that we have with fellow believers and our family that is brought together through Christ. What we can find throughout the bible, and in the Epistles in particular, is that there is without a doubt a very certain and specific divide between those that accept the almighty God and his will and those who have no part in it. I have been trying to research this matter for a while. What I am usually met with the quote from Jesus in the book of Matthew (Matthew 12:30), “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” With this, I often find discussions of the commission.
This particular dilemma does not involve the above, though. I have friends (two, in particular, I've known for well over a decade) that simply want nothing to do with God. My religious talks fall on deaf ears, mockery, and so on for so many people in my life and I am just not certain what I should do about it. On one hand, I could remain friends with them, and continue in my duties on earth to preach the gospel to them in hopes that one day they will turn to Him. This seems like the answer. However at least half of them resent me for it, and a quarter mock me for my faith. It seems like when a conversation involves religious matters it goes south. Some part of me wants to say, "I've done my part, I should move on and give my time to others" and another part of me wants to hold on to these people many that I have known for so long.

I'm at the point now with this that I just want to know what the biblical thing to do is. I feel like there is a case to be made with either decision but I also can recognize that there are emotions involved with this that may cloud my judgment. If anyone can give me any advice I would appreciate it.

1 John 3:11-16 ESV


The love that we are to have for one another comes from God who is love. It is a love that is centered in moral preference and which prefers what God prefers, which is everything that is holy, righteous, godly, honest, morally pure, upright, and faithful. And when we love God in this way or when we are loving other people in this way, we are preferring to live through Christ and to embrace God’s will and to choose his choices, obeying them through his power (source: biblehub.com interlinear).

Therefore, when we are loving others with this kind of love, we are going to choose to say to them and do to them and for them what we believe is ultimately for their good, as God defines good. And we will not deliberately, habitually, nor premeditatedly do what is evil or sinful against them. This, however, is not a claim to sinless perfection. But it does have to do with the choice of our wills to do what we believe and know is right and to not do evil to other people. So, we may not love perfectly, but we should love sincerely.

And we have a good example given to us here of what this kind of love should not look like. We have the example of Cain. And Cain was the firstborn son of Adam and Eve who were the first humans God created. Their second born son was Abel. Abel was a keeper of the sheep and Cain was a worker of the ground. In the course of time they each brought an offering to the Lord. The Lord accepted Abel’s offering, but he rejected Cain’s, so Cain was very angry with God.


And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. So, how do the Scriptures differentiate between those who are evil and those who are righteous? It all comes down to what we practice, i.e. our lifestyles. For if sin is what we practice (deliberately and habitually), and if righteousness, godliness, and obedience to our Lord are not what we practice, we are not of God. And it is those who practice righteousness (of God) who are righteous in the sight of God.

So, when this says here that we are not to be surprised if the world hates us, and this comes right on the heels of the example of Cain, what I believe this is saying is not only should we not be like Cain, but we should not be surprised if other people treat us like Cain treated his brother. And we should not be surprised even if other professing Christians treat us like Cain treated his brother, and that they may turn against us because their deeds are evil and because we are walking in holiness and in righteousness, in practice.

For Jesus told us that if we follow him with our lives that we will be hated and persecuted as he was hated and persecuted. And who were those who hated and persecuted him? They were rulers and people of influence in the temple of God, many of whom were also teachers of the law and of the prophets, and who professed faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And that God, the only true God, is Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit – one God with three distinct personalities and functions.

So, our persecutors, as well, could be those professing faith in Jesus Christ but who are walking in sin and not in righteousness and holiness. And so they won’t like it if what we are sharing is the truth of the gospel of our salvation, for many of them are buying into a diluted and altered gospel message which is placating them in their sins and which appeals to human flesh, and so they don’t accept that they must die with Christ to sin and walk in his holiness and righteousness, in his power and strength.

Now, going back to the subject of agape love, we who are genuine followers of Jesus Christ are to be those who abide in love and who love each other with this love which comes from God. And if we do not love with this kind of love, then we abide in death, not in eternal life with God. And again, this kind of love being spoken of here gives preference to God and to what he prefers, i.e. to what is holy, righteous, and godly. And we are not to be like Cain who murdered his brother because his brother’s deeds were righteous and his own deeds were evil.

But we who are following Jesus Christ with our lives, in practice, must be willing to lay down our lives for others to see them be free from their slavery to sin and to walk with God in holiness and in righteousness, in his power and strength and wisdom. But when we are sharing the truth of the gospel, as Jesus and his NT apostles taught it, we are going to have enemies, and not just those making no profession of faith in Christ, but also some who profess to believe in Jesus but who are not living the faith they profess.

[Matt 5:10-12; Matt 10:16-25; Matt 24:9-14; Lu 6:22-23; Lu 21:12-19; Jn 15:1-21; Jn 16:33; Jn 17:14; Ac 14:22; Rom 5:3-5; Phil 3:7-11; 1 Pet 1:6-7; 1 Pet 4:12-17; 2 Tim 3:12; 1 Thess 3:1-5; Jas 1:2-4; 2 Co 1:3-11; Heb 12:3-12; 1 Jn 3:13; Rev 6:9-11; Rev 7:9-17; Rev 11:1-3; Rev 12:17; Rev 13:1-18; Rev 14:1-13]

Give Them All to Jesus

Phil Johnson / Bob Benson Sr. 1975

He never said you'd only see sunshine.
He never said there'd be no rain.
He only promised a heart full of singing
About the very things that once brought pain..

Shattered dreams, wounded hearts, and broken toys.
Give them all, give them all,
Give them all to Jesus,
And He will turn your sorrows into joy.

Login to view embedded media Caution: This link may contain ads

Hi - just re-introducing myself after a long hiatus.

Wanted to ask why the Christian Apologetics forum is now closed? Is there an alternative forum for such debates?

Jan

I have been collecting a few quotes over the last couple of years that are really good quotes for either sharing the Gospel, about the Gospel or they have something to do with repentance.
Please feel free to add to the list by making a post.

The great commission is not an option to be considered. It is a command to be obeyed. Hudson Taylor

We shall have all eternity to celebrate our victories, but we have only one swift hour before the sun sets in which to win them. Robert Moffatt

If their houses were on fire, you would run and help them. And will you not help them when their souls are almost at the fire of hell Richard Baxter

It has always been difficult to understand those evangelical Christians who…say they serve the Lord, but they divide their days as to leave plenty of time to play and relax and enjoy the pleasures of this world. They are at ease while the world burns. A. W. Tozer

The world is not so much hardened to the gospel as it is ignorant of the Gospel. Because the gospel is not being preached. Paul Washer

Being an extrovert isn’t essential to evangelism. Obedience and Love are.

Evangelism should not be measured by the counting of conversions, but by the proclamation of the Gospel.

Jesus died for sinners. Cannot we live for them? Charles Spurgeon

The early disciples were fishers of men. While Modern disciples are often little more than aquarium keepers.

We talk of the second coming; half the world has never heard of the first. Oswald J Smith

It is a sad testimony to our lack of love that we had to be commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature. Ray Comfort

If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for. Charles Spurgeon

The greatest sound of praise is the sound of feet taking the Gospel to the lost.

If your Gospel isn’t touching others, it hasn’t touched you.

Churches that have lost their heart for evangelism are living out their last chapter. Anthony G Pappas

The only alternative to soulwinning is disobedience to God. Curtis Hutson

“We are saved by faith and grace alone, but we will be judged by works” John Mcarthur

To evangelise, does not mean to win converts. But simply to announce the Good News irrespective of the results. John Stott

If you downplay the radical depravity of man, then you downplay the Glory of the Gospel. Paul Washer

If you are fearful to share your faith, don’t pray for less fear, pray for more love. Ray Comfort

Preaching that downplays Gods wrath does not enhance true evangelism, it undermines it. John Mcarthur

Repentance is not a work. It is a change of the heart. A change of the mind. Just like faith has works or it is dead, so too repentance has works. Bringing forth fruit worthy of repentance. So, if you have truly repented, then your emotions, your actions, your will, everything will change. Paul Washer

"Doctor. You are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill. You hope to heal the sick without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them. Your delicacy is cruelty, your flatteries are poisons you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in a fool's paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumber from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God we will not." Charles Spurgeon

The Gospel is not something to be hoarded. But rather something to be shared Ray Comfort

Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you’re not saved yourself. Be sure of that! Charles Spurgeon

Lower the Law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt; this lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion. If you set the law aside, you deprive the gospel of its most powerful weapon; that is the rebuke that brings men to Christ. Therefore, the Law serves a most necessary purpose, and it must not be removed from its place. Charles Spurgeon

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who proclaim it. George Orwell

Judge not unless you be judged. Twist not the scripture lest ye be like satin.

You are willing to save yourself, but you do not love your neighbour enough to warn him of Gods wrath to come. Instead, you bless him with acts of kindness. If he joins the fellowship, what was his reasoning? Friendship or has he come under the grace of God?

“Your testimony is not the Gospel.” R. C. Sproul

The highest service that men may attain to on earth is to preach the word of God. John Wycliffe

“Evermore the Law must prepare the way for the gospel. To overlook this in instructing souls is almost certain to result in false hope, the introduction of a false standard of Christian experience, and to fill the church with false converts.” Charles Finny

If there is no sorrow in a person after you have told them the Gospel, it is because of the lack of knowledge as to God’s law.

As pastors, we encouraged our people, we didn’t equip them. The Five Fold Ministries job is to equip the saints. Not to pamper them. We were so happy that we had a crowd that we forgot that we have an assignment to raise an army.

"I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.” Penn Jillette

If you know of everlasting life, and you know of everlasting death, how much do you have to hate somebody to not tell them of it? Penn Jillette (Altered)

Could a mariner sit idle if he heard the drowning cry? Could a doctor sit in comfort and just let his patients die? Could a fireman sit idle, let men burn and give no hand? Can you sit at ease in Zion with the world around you damned?” Leonard Ravenhill

It is easier to denature plutonium than it is to denature the evil spirit of man. Only God can change the evil spirit in man. He can take a hateful heart and replace it with love. That is the fruit of genuine conversion. Ray Comfort.

The Law produces terror but the Cross produces contrition. Ray Comfort

Churches need to be warned. Your activity not only reflects upon you. It reflects upon God. So, if you are in the world, stop it. If you are living for yourself; cease and turn back to Him in repentance and faith. Paul Washer

Logging truck analogy
If I was to say that on my way here, I stood on the road was hit by a logging truck doing 100 miles an hour, you would say, “That’s absolutely absurd. It is impossible to have an encounter with something as large as a logging truck and not be changed."
And then my question would be to you what is larger, a logging truck or God.
How is it that so many people today profess to have had an encounter with Jesus Christ and yet they are not permanently changed. Paul Washer

Hey, here's my sermon from last Sunday!

Login to view embedded media
5th Sunday After Trinity
A brief sermon from our English services at Kitaosaka Evangelical Lutheran Church
(Pre-recorded for web)

The Rejected Stone
Lutheran Church
Osaka, Japan

Lately I've been feeling like I've been trying to live 2 lives. I feel like I need to give it ALL to God. I'd like to do more! I'd like to do better! How do I do this?

I'd like to expand on my history but I just want to leave it pretty vague right now. If someone were to tell you 'hey, reader, how can I become all in w/ Jesus, but I'm not sure how', what would you tell them?

Dean makes some interesting points in this one...


I think there was some false assumptions about Trump being popular for being right-wing (which is presumably why DeSantis is trying to outflank him on the right), when it's looking more and more like the "draw" was that he was a "middle finger to the establishment".

The examples Dean cites are the fact that Trump sided with Disney over DeSantis (certainly not a right wing viewpoint), Trump also brags about the vaccine (that many on the right don't like) and acts as if he was in the lab making it himself, and even attacks DeSantis for saying "woke" too much and criticized him for being too strict on abortion. Yet, it doesn't seem to have hurt his polling numbers in the republican field.

Clearly they seem to be attracted more to the man and less to the policy. It would seem as if Trump could adopt some more leftist viewpoints if he wanted to, and his die-hard supporters would still love him, and the people on the other side would still hate him.

House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise on Monday blamed President Biden for the brewing fight over the annual Pentagon policy bill, saying he had turned the U.S. military into a proving ground for a left-wing social agenda.

Mr. Scalise said the administration spent billions of taxpayer dollars on green energy policies and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the Pentagon “instead of lethality.”

“House Republicans are bringing forward a plan that shifts $39 billion from inefficient and woke programs, obsolete weapons systems, and unnecessary and harmful Pentagon bureaucracy to essential capabilities we need to defend our nation,” said Mr. Scalise, Louisiana Republican.

In the book of Genesis chapter 4 . God seems to prefer meat over plants . Do you agree ?

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. "

Former U.S. President Donald Trump wins seat on Hubbard Oregon Fire District board​

Following the Oregon Special Election held on Tuesday, May 16, the Statesman Journal reports that five write-in candidates received two votes for Hubbard Fire District Board Director Position No. 3.

Officials rolled a 12-sided die multiple times to determine which of the individuals would take over the position. [Ultimately,] Trump was declared the winner of the tiebreaker.

With a permanent residence at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump hasn’t announced any plans to relocate to Hubbard — or neighboring towns Woodburn or Aurora [which would be required if he were to accept the office.].

[Important Note: This original post that began this thread has certain deficiencies due to the development of my understanding of the subject since it was first written. Rather than edit the original post, I have instead written what I hope is a better, more clear exposition on the topic later in this thread. It can be found here, post #38. While I stand by the overall conclusion & thrust of the original post, the later commentary is fuller, free of the errors here, and also has helpful links to excellent resources I've discovered as I've continued researching the topic. Páx et bonum!].

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Praised be Jesus Christ!

The title is a tad more on-the-nose than I'd prefer, but I do feel that the situation on the Catholic blogosphere & even among well-known Catholic personalities (especially those who describe themselves as traditionalists) requires a certain edge. This is a topic I've wrestled with since Amōris Lætitia came out during my seminary years, and as I've watched large numbers of otherwise well-meaning Catholics (East & West) come to the conclusion that the Pope is a de facto heretic. For those who don't go that far, for whatever reason, there is a resurgence in the idea that a Pope can formally teach heresy (some claim Pope Francis already *has* done so).

Yet, this concept of a heretical Pope has serious theological problems and implications. This, especially, if someone is openly claiming that the Pope either is a formal heretic, or has formally taught heresy. If such a thing is true, then both the Catholic Church & Christianity itself is in a lot of trouble (to understate it enormously!). No...let's go ahead and say it: If a Pope of Old Rome can be a true heretic, then God has been forsworn. If that is so, then He is not God. (Psalm 91:4; Heb. 10:23; etc.). The logic of this is inescapable, as many Catholic theologians have noted for centuries; long before Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I. Even the historical & logical ramifications of such a thing are utterly astounding! Think about it. Why preserve the Church through all the Great Heresies, Worldly Persecutions, and Diabolic Trials just to drop the ball with...Pope Francis?? Wait, what?!?! It is not surprising that many who have accepted the idea of a heretical Pope have either fallen from the Faith, or are otherwise in a state of open "resistance" to the Ecumenical Pontiff – an idea contrary to the Catholic Faith on its very face, as even Pope St. Pius X (among many other saints) taught quite clearly & vehemently.

So what do we do? I'm no fool. As an instituted Reader and a practicing Romano-Byzantine Catholic of 15 years, I know well that the Church is full of rot; sadly, even the Roman Church. And I think most can agree that Pope Francis, for all his numerous excellent qualities, has not the theological acumen nor deft use of language than previous Pontiffs. Yet, that's beside the point. If anything we were "due" for a less than stellar pope in the Church for well over a century, if not far longer.

It's not the point because the Catholic doctrine regarding the Papacy is not dependent on the individual within office, but rather the Word of God. It is He alone who vouchsafes to keep His Promises...not Jorge Bergoglio, nor any other. And, more importantly, this isn't just coming from wild speculation on my part – it's profoundly present in the Apostolic Tradition.

Naturally, these forums are not arenas where I can exposit a 20 page essay on all the many reasons why Papal indefectibility is sentia certa (although it would be quite easy!). Instead, I want to point to the most important and specific documents that have special magisterial weight. Notably among these is Vatican I's teaching in Pāstor Aēternus. Many, both then and now, saw that document as primarily about defining the extraordinary charism of Papal infallibility. As we all know, this is a rare charism that requires extremely specific conditions before the Holy Spirit will grant it. Yet, Pāstor Aēternus is a *vastly* more important text in laying out the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine on the Papacy. And, as many have shown since the days when the very text was debated at the Ecumenical Council, it contains a strong & clear teaching that the Holy See is indefectable. More specifically, it teaches that the Pope cannot be a formal heretic, nor can he bind the Church to any heretical teaching. Surprised? Far-fetched? O how Catholic catechesis has fallen...

Let us begin there.

In order to properly understand Vatican I's teaching we must remember the context. For centuries hence, the Church struggled with factions that had differing views of the Pope of Rome. Despite a rather consistent teaching history in favor of what Pāstor Aēternus would decree, there were many who denied perennial doctrine. Some thought the Pope had only limited jurisdiction (e.g., Gallicans), others that he was a sort of oracle (e.g. "Ultramontanes"), that he could indeed be a heretic ("Dollingerites"), and still others. Hence, when Chapter IV of the pre-promulgated text was being discussed, the issue of the Pope's teaching authority & its nature was hotly debated.

A key insight into these debates is the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser. This text, often ignored to great ills, laid out the substance of the debate and provides an essential hermeneutic to these questions. I cannot obviously outline it all here, but it is readily available. Henceforth I will therefore paint in broad strokes:

The concept of a heretical pope as a theological question is not new (hardly!). The rise of Protestantism, especially, made it a topic discussed in the Post-Tridentine era. Most famous among those is probably St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Ironically, those who wish to argue that the Pope can be a heretic attempt to quote him to that effect. But as I will show, they greviously misunderstand him. Nevertheless, let us begin with him.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that it was generally agreed that a Pope might fall into material heresy in a private capacity; most likely due to ignorance or error. This may have been the case with Honorius I and John XXII (although those cases are not anywhere near as clear as many claim!). Yet, the question as to formal heresy had zero consensus. Both St. Robert Bellarmine, and another theologian of whom we will speak shortly (Suárez), merely *speculated* on this possibility. Yet, both men concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy due to Divine assistance.

Suárez, especially, rejected the idea completely. He taught that even if a Pope, as a private Christian, fell into error out of ignorance, God would Providentially ensure that such a Pope could not harm the Church. Following the Angelic Doctor's line of thought, God would simply not allow such a Pope to impose heresy or even erroneous teaching on the Church universal. As he put it: "The faith of Peter was Catholic and unable to fail; but the faith of the Roman Church is the faith of Peter. Therefore, the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic faith, from which this See can never defect." The quote is so like unto St. Bellarmine's teaching it is often mistaken as his!

These teachings made their way into the debates regarding Pastor Aeternus. As the Relatio of Gasser states, this debate was to be *settled* with the promulgation of the Ecumenical Council. One of the issues that arose in the debates was a number of theologians who held to a teaching by a certain Albert Pighius, who taught that the Pope as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To some this seemed extreme, especially the more "liberal" bishops of Dollingerite & Gallican tendencies.

Yet, Bishop Gasser leaned into this "fear" and argued brilliantly that Pighius' teaching was *not* only his own. The attempt to make a hard distinction between Pighius and St. Bellarmine was not as easy as the more liberal bishops thought. Why? Because St. Bellarmine was quite aware of Pighius' teaching! On Pighius' teaching, St. Bellarmine – that oft-misquoted "champion" of proponents of Papal heresy – declared:

"It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." This, ultimately in fact, is *precisely* the conclusion St. Bellarmine himself reached.

Thus, Bishop Gasser demonstrated to all that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter IV (more on that later) was not that of Albert Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of the "Pope is an oracle" schools. No, rather it is one and the same which St. Bellarmine taught as the most certain and assured. That is, the most common and certain opinion. In passing we should reiterate for clarity that the teaching adopted in Chapter IV of Pāstor Aēternus does follow St. Bellarmine on the points that the Doctor of the Church did and did not mean. Namely, that a Roman Pontiff could perhaps hold to material heresy in his capacity as a private teacher through ignorance or some other means, but that God would never allow the Successors of St. Peter to fall into formal heresy, nor bind the Church to such heretical teaching in the Papal Magisterium.

Before going further, let us not forget that this idea that Pope Francis has fallen into formal heresy and/or is attempting to bind the Church to heretical teaching (take your pick on which...) in the Magisterium is *precisely* what many giants in the "traditionalist" community (for lack of a better umbrella term!) have and do argue. I need not name names...

Instead, let us come to what may be called the "clincher." Forget not, dear reader, that an Ecumenical Council is the supreme historical act of teaching authority in the Catholic Church. Even if it only deals with ordinary magisterial teaching, it remains far greater than any lesser vehicle of teaching.

The teaching of St. Bellarmine above, according to the Relatio, was *formally dogmatized* at the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in the decree Pāstor Aēternus. Most specifically in Chapter IV. Let us cite the relevant passages as briefly as we may.

To begin, the Chapter notes both Papal infallibility & indefectability are present since ancient times. It quotes the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople professing: "For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true security of the Christian religion." It goes on after a few more examples to state what is the most important definition of Papal indefectability to date:

"6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error. This, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples...

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." [P.A., Ch. IV].

Click to expand...

We should note here that these paragraphs come before the extraordinary, solemn definition of Papal Infallibility with its subsequent conditions. Some have thought these paragraphs are little more than explanatory passages to prepare for the dogmatic definition. Yet, this is most certainly not what the Council Fathers thought! Their including the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (cited above in 6.) is a crucial hermeneutical key. Indeed, the lack of citation of this in the ineptly named, rebellious "Correctio Filialis" a number of years ago speaks volumes!!!

But let us return to the Relatio for our evidence. During one of the debates, the Bishop of Meaux, France, spoke out in favor of dogmatizing St. Bellarmine's Fourth Opinion (the one I discussed above). His call was not received well, it seems, by more liberal bishops (especially the French). Yet, Bishop Gasser defended him and declared:

"This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: 'If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.'"

This is a remarkable point, and it underscores why Papal indefectibility, even if not *extraordinarily* defined as Papal infallibility, is sententia certa – more specifically, "sententia ad fidem pertinēns et theologice certā." In layman's terms: "A teaching pertaining to the Faith that is theologically certain due to its intrinsic connection with the doctrines of Divine Revelation."

These truths may or may not be definitively approved by the Church (yet?), nevertheless they cannot be doubted without injuring the vitals of the Faith and its inner harmony as bequeathed by Christ Himself.

To conclude, am I saying Pope Francis is a best pope ever? Nope! Am I saying everything he says is golden and undying wisdom? Nope. Am I saying that he cannot hold apparently wonky private opinions about things? Not that either. Am I saying I think allPope Francis' lesser prudential decisions, pastoral judgements, or liturgical choices are protected by God? No.

But what I am saying is what St. Bellarmine said and Pastor Aeternus confirmed. To wit, I end with the great Jesuit Doctor of the Church's words himself regaring the first Pope and archetype of all his Successors:

"[St. Peter] could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith." ("De Controversis" Book 4, Ch. III).

And lastly, I must – as an instituted Reader – issue a caveat from the Holy Scriptures of which Holy Mother Church has entrusted to my unprofitable care:

"Vēre peccātum hariolandi est repugnāre, et scelus īdōlolatrīae nōlle acquiēscere..." (I Sm. XV:XXIII N.V.)

"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and disobedience is as iniquity and idolatry..." (1 Sm. 15:23 ESV-CE).

May it not be so for any of us with regard to the current Supreme Pontiff, even in the midst of confusion & anxiety...first and foremost myself!!

Let us pray:


O God, shepherd and ruler of all the faithful,
look favorably on your servant Francis,
whom you have set at the head of your Church as her shepherd;
Grant, we pray, that by word and example
he may be of service to those over whom he presides
so that, together with the flock entrusted to his care,
he may come to everlasting life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen. +

I welcome disagreements and comments, but demand charity from all (myself included).

I've been a christian since I was 7 years old, grew up in a Christian home. God called me to missions when I was 17 and have been involved in both missions and professional film/tv production over the last 33 years.

I've worked on major Hollywood movies and tv shows, and also have been active in Christian film for the last 7 years. I have worked with Answers in Genesis, the International Christian Film Festival, and have many friendships with key people in the world of Christian film.

Last year I returned to Australia to visit family, but God has been calling me back USA side. The call has been clear, yet I'm still not sure where to plug in. My whole life I've had the struggle between putting food on the table and a roof over my head and obeying God.

The last 2 years every job opportunity has been closed. I've just applied for a role at a church back in the last city in the USA I called home, but a week after applying still no response. I keep getting the urge to pack suitcases and prepare to move back USA side, but without an open door to walk through where I'll have income, a roof over my head and transport I feel stuck.

The last few days I've been seeking God, and nothing but crickets. Just complete and utter silence. I'm now at a point that I can't work on non-Christian productions anymore.

I'm on next to no income right now, and moments away from financial disaster.

I feel a bit lost and stuck, God has always provided a way forward but right now I'm in no mans land.