Do we need to be baptized in order to be saved ?

[AveChristusRex]

One claims to be successor of St. Peter, and thus given Apostolic Succession...

Ah! But it was Christ who specifically gave St. Peter the Keys of Heaven: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19). Note that the Greek word for “this” – as in this rock – is the demonstrative pronoun taute. It means “this very” rock or “this same” rock. Taute is used when "it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity of the speaker or the literary context of the writer" (H. E. Dana and J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 127). In the King James Version, taute is translated as “the same” in 1 Corinthians 7:20 and “this same” in 2 Corinthians 9:4.

Moreover, the words 'Petros' and 'petra' had the same meaning (rock) in Greek, which was used at the time of Christ. In some much earlier ancient Greek poetry, Petros meant "small stone" and petra "large rock,” but that slight distinction had already disappeared when Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. The minor distinction between petros and petra only exists in Attic Greek, not Koine Greek. The Gospel was written in Koine Greek, and both petros and petra meant "rock.” But Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek, and in Aramaic, Matthew 16:18 would say this: “You are kepha, and on this kepha, I will build my Church.” Notice that in Aramaic, when the same word (kepha) is used in both places, there is absolutely no difference between the two. Jesus equated Simon and the rock upon which the Church would be built. Note that there is strong evidence from the early Church fathers that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek:

• In Book 3, Chapter 3, of his Ecclesiastical history, Eusebius quotes Papias to state: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able.” (Note that when he says the “Hebrew dialect,” he means Aramaic.)
• In Book 6, Chapter 25, Eusebius quotes Origen to state: “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew… who having published it for Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”
• In Book 6, Chapter 25, Eusebius quotes St. Irenaeus: “Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the Church at Rome.”

As cited by Eusebius, St. Irenaeus (who lived approximately 260 to 340 A.D. and compiled the first complete history of the Church) says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect (i.e., Aramaic) and cites Papias, Origen, and Irenaeus to show that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. In relation to the matter of the "rock," Dr. John Broadus (1886), a Baptist scholar, said: “As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted… But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ: and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession… Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, ‘I will build,’ would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying ‘thou art Peter, and on this rock’ Jesus pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.” (John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886, p. 356.)

The point of this is to say that if the Church is built on St. Peter, and Christ gives St. Peter the Keys of Heaven and the power to bind and lose (the same power given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-22: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy [Shebna’s] robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”), then it is only natural that the things that he declares DO matter, and thus the Church and its traditions cannot be built on anyone except St. Peter, and those begotten by St. Peter (the Petrine See), not anyone who claims that their ministry was by God.

 

[The Liturgist]

Luther should have followed the example of St Catherine of Sienna. Instead, he chose a path of destruction.

The Great Schism of 1054 resulted in Luther’s actions being non-schismatic insofar as Luther reimplemented certain common practices of the Roman church that disappeared within a 300 year period before, and after, the time it broke communion with the Orthodox, which would include the use of vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, and also the public celebration of the divine office, which outside monasteries and some cathedrals, had been reduced to a private devotion of the clergy.

Now, if Luther had separated before the Great Schism, that would be another matter entirely.

Also one can argue that St. Catharine of Sienna as a nun did not really have a choice, as no one would have backed her in establishing a new church, nor did she try to implement one, and furthermore she sadly reposed at a very young age, although she did much good, but she was not in a position comparable to that of Luther.

 

[AveChristusRex]

The Great Schism of 1054 resulted in Luther’s actions being non-schismatic insofar as Luther reimplemented certain common practices of the Roman church that disappeared within a 300 year period before, and after, the time it broke communion with the Orthodox, which would include the use of vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, and also the public celebration of the divine office, which outside monasteries and some cathedrals, had been reduced to a private devotion of the clergy.

Now, if Luther had separated before the Great Schism, that would be another matter entirely.

I don't think this is the right place to discuss this. However, I will say that this is my area of expertise and would be happy to discuss why neither the Eastern nor Western Church "broke communion" and how that has been a devalued and disproven talking point.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm sure that a Catholic who is currently in communion with the residents of St. Peter's Basilica, and a Catholic who is not, will not agree on this matter; thus I don't really see much use in debating it, as many have done much greater than that; but in my perspective, the point still stands: any council that recedes at any point from a doctrine previously declared to be infallible and steadfast for all time (as VII did in multiple of its declarations, not only on liturgical rites or practices alone), then they have receded in the least bit, and are thus are in error. See my 'Contra JSRG' on the matter of the notion/ecclesial reaction of/to error: Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’ God bless!

I did not realize you were a traditional independent Catholic but am excited to take note of that. Out of curiosity are you a Sedevacantist, or SSPX, or something else? And what version of the missal and breviary do you use?

 

[AveChristusRex]

I did not realize you were a traditional independent Catholic but am excited to take note of that. Out of curiosity are you a Sedevacantist, or SSPX, or something else? And what version of the missal and breviary do you use?

I don't like the phrase 'traditional,' as it [to me] implies that the concessions made in modernity are valid to the point of being able to separate themselves from the traditional practice, which, as we know, is valid. While some may call it 'sedevacantism,' I do not consider myself a 'hard' sedevacantist, as the title of 'sedevacantist' is used as a derogatory to those who do not accept VII, plus I do not accept the accompanying belief system predominantly due to the folks within it being outside of the Catholic faith for various reasons, such as diluting their faith with ideology, etc.; Moreover, I don't see the necessity of giving a name to the practice of precise analysis of doctrine, as that should be what all Catholics do, not just those of a certain ilk.

While I look positively on the work of Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers and his contemporaries [McKenna, Sanborn], I don't entirely accept sedeprivationism. I personally believe the Pontifical throne is materialiter sed non formaliter* [* being my definition of the matter or material aspect of the papacy being a literal occupation of the See (such as an occupying power would establish a puppet-state) of Rome], but does not possess the power to call himself the Pontiff, nor to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church in Christ’s name, and as His vicar. Currently, we are without a valid, licit, and legitimate office holder, and while the first few years of John XXIII's Papacy were valid, his promulgation of the retractions I mentioned to concretecamper earlier caused him 'ipso facto' to lose the power to preach and sanctify. Thus you can see that I fit into neither group:

• Sedevacantism is described as a position of denial of the Papacy of John XXIII, and belief that Pius XII was the last Pope, which I do not hold.
• Sedeprivationism is described as a position of acceptance by the College of Cardinals of the present day, which I do not hold.

Still, if I were to describe myself as something, it would be a sedesubsidist, as I believe that the Orthodox Church provides a valid sacrament and fulfills Sunday obligation 'in absentia' due to the lack of parishes. As for missals and breviaries, I use the Missal of St. Pius X and the Roman Breviary of 'Divino afflatu' (1911).

 

[concretecamper]

Also one can argue that St. Catharine of Sienna as a nun did not really have a choice

She certainly had a choice. She chose to respectful correct.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm sure that a Catholic who is currently in communion with the residents of St. Peter's Basilica, and a Catholic who is not, will not agree on this matter; thus I don't really see much use in debating it, as many have done much greater than that; but in my perspective, the point still stands: any council that recedes at any point from a doctrine previously declared to be infallible and steadfast for all time (as VII did in multiple of its declarations, not only on liturgical rites or practices alone), then they have receded in the least bit, and are thus are in error. See my 'Contra JSRG' on the matter of the notion/ecclesial reaction of/to error: Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’ God bless!

Popes sometimes have odd personal opinions. Trying to pass them off as equal to Catholic Doctrine is just as odd. His Church has survived much worse than Francis

 

[CoreyD]

Ah! But it was Christ who specifically gave St. Peter the Keys of Heaven: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19). Note that the Greek word for “this” – as in this rock – is the demonstrative pronoun taute. It means “this very” rock or “this same” rock. Taute is used when "it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity of the speaker or the literary context of the writer" (H. E. Dana and J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 127). In the King James Version, taute is translated as “the same” in 1 Corinthians 7:20 and “this same” in 2 Corinthians 9:4.

Moreover, the words 'Petros' and 'petra' had the same meaning (rock) in Greek, which was used at the time of Christ. In some much earlier ancient Greek poetry, Petros meant "small stone" and petra "large rock,” but that slight distinction had already disappeared when Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. The minor distinction between petros and petra only exists in Attic Greek, not Koine Greek. The Gospel was written in Koine Greek, and both petros and petra meant "rock.” But Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek, and in Aramaic, Matthew 16:18 would say this: “You are kepha, and on this kepha, I will build my Church.” Notice that in Aramaic, when the same word (kepha) is used in both places, there is absolutely no difference between the two. Jesus equated Simon and the rock upon which the Church would be built. Note that there is strong evidence from the early Church fathers that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek:

• In Book 3, Chapter 3, of his Ecclesiastical history, Eusebius quotes Papias to state: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able.” (Note that when he says the “Hebrew dialect,” he means Aramaic.)
• In Book 6, Chapter 25, Eusebius quotes Origen to state: “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew… who having published it for Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”
• In Book 6, Chapter 25, Eusebius quotes St. Irenaeus: “Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the Church at Rome.”

As cited by Eusebius, St. Irenaeus (who lived approximately 260 to 340 A.D. and compiled the first complete history of the Church) says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect (i.e., Aramaic) and cites Papias, Origen, and Irenaeus to show that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. In relation to the matter of the "rock," Dr. John Broadus (1886), a Baptist scholar, said: “As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted… But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ: and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession… Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, ‘I will build,’ would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying ‘thou art Peter, and on this rock’ Jesus pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.” (John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886, p. 356.)

The point of this is to say that if the Church is built on St. Peter, and Christ gives St. Peter the Keys of Heaven and the power to bind and lose (the same power given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-22: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy [Shebna’s] robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”), then it is only natural that the things that he declares DO matter, and thus the Church and its traditions cannot be built on anyone except St. Peter, and those begotten by St. Peter (the Petrine See), not anyone who claims that their ministry was by God.

I'm sure you have had this argument multiple times, and have been repeatedly shown from scripture that Christ is the rock on which the church is built.
Why do you persist in making the same old argument?
Do you dispute the scriptures.

Since this thread, is a different topic, and I don't want to be party to derailing it, go to this post, and explain what scriptures you are contending, and why, and what exactly you disagree with.
You can post your argument there, and I will respond to it.

Please use scriptures, to support your argument. Thanks.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Popes sometimes have odd personal opinions. Trying to pass them off as equal to Catholic Doctrine is just as odd. His Church has survived much worse than Francis

In speaking on Leo's Satis Cognitum #9, that is a possible dissuasion. However, the matter of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio cannot be ignored as it is still binding [as I showed evidence for in my response to JSRG] and thus compliments Satis Cognitum in its declaration with ex cathedra backing. I think we are misunderstanding one another on the nature of Francis; I am a pacifist, so I don't think Francis is a bad person at heart, nor is he as bad as other pontiffs like Alexander, but the fact is that Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law still applies to a good pope and a bad pope: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.” I personally looked up to much of what Benedict XVI did in relation to the preservation of the Mass, but just because he is a good pope does not mean he is a legally legitimate or binding pope; therein lies the problem.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Please use scriptures, to support your argument. Thanks.

Okie Doke, regarding "Christ is the rock on which the church is built," notice that 1 Corinthians 3:11 states, “For other foundation, no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.” Yet, Apocalypse 21:14 states, "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” The fact that Christ is the only foundation, as 1 Cor. 3:11 teaches, means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. As we can see in this matter, St. Peter’s authority comes precisely from Christ.

The fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20) does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Just as Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14) yet also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to St. Peter (John 21:15-17), he is also the one with the keys (Apoc. 1:18; Apoc. 3:7), but He gives His keys to St. Peter.

 

[concretecamper]

In speaking on Leo's Satis Cognitum #9, that is a possible dissuasion. However, the matter of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio cannot be ignored as it is still binding [as I showed evidence for in my response to JSRG] and thus compliments Satis Cognitum in its declaration with ex-cathedra backing. I think we are misunderstanding one another on the nature of Francis; I am a pacifist, so I don't think Francis is a bad person at heart, nor is he as bad as other pontiffs like Alexander, but the fact is that Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law still applies to a good pope and a bad pope: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.” I personally looked up to much of what Benedict XVI did in relation to the preservation of the Mass, but just because he is a good pope does not mean he is a legally legitimate or binding pope; therein lies the problem.

And after all this, the fact still remains Francis did not change doctrine.

Btw, I am not a fan of Pope Francis or the changes that resulted after VII, I'm just here to keep things real.

And I've used that particular quote from Pope Leo XIII many times, and I think it is spot on.

 

[AveChristusRex]

And after all this, the fact still remains Francis did not change doctrine.

Btw, I am not a fan of Pope Francis or the changes that resulted after VII, I'm just here to keep things real.

And I've used that particular quote from Pope Leo XIII many times, and I think it is spot on.

No no, Francis is not who I was specifically using Canon 188.4 against, but the post-VII Pontificates entirely, as if a Pontiff perceives the authority of an erroneous council to be binding, then by that fact he is in error: "In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define]: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless..." (Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559). Thus, a College of Cardinals that accepted a false council annulled its ability to elect a Pontiff, and thus, Paul VI was the first annulled election of the post-VII period. That was what I was speaking on specifically.

 

[The Liturgist]

And after all this, the fact still remains Francis did not change doctrine.

That’s debatable, at least insofar as the DDF is answerable to Pope Francis, who established it to replace the CDF formerly governed by Gerhard Cardinal Muller; the DDF issued Fiducia Supplicans, which I, and many traditional Catholic friends of mine, are unable to reconcile in terms of its view of homosexuality to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II, and Deus Caritatis Est, and Sacramentum Caritatis Est of Pope Benedict XVI.

Now one could argue that allowing clergy to “non-liturgically bless” homosexual couples is a change in praxis and not doctrine, however, there is the issue of that clashing with lex orandi, lex credendi, and additionally there is the view taken by many traditional Catholics, and also myself, that all formal benedictions given by a priest or bishop, even ex tempore, are liturgical by their very nature, especially in the Roman Rite in which the priests and bishops often sacerdotally represent the people, for instance, in the Solemn HIgh Mass, Requiem Mass and Mass of the Presanctified in which historically only the celebrant would partake of the Eucharist, and even in the Novus Ordo mass, many Catholic parishes continue to provide communion to the laity in one species only, that of the precious Body, with the precious Blood of our Lord being taken only by the celebrant (a prior Roman local council ruled that partaking of the Body amounts to partaking of the Blood.

Additionally, when one considers the traditional Catholics who have opposed Fiducia Supplicans, we are not talking about Sedevacantists or people on the fringe, or retired bishops only, but rather important clergy such as the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which is the second largest denomination in Ukraine after the Eastern Orthodox, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, which is home to a population of German Catholics who were forcibly relocated there after World War II, but who have made a home, and many prefer to live in Kazakhstan rather than returning to Germany as is their right under the German Basic Law, because Kazakhstan, for all its faults, embraces more traditional family values. Additionally, Raymond Cardinal Burke, and Cardinal Sarah were also opposed to Fiducia Supplicans, in addition to a great many other bishops and archbishops.

 

[concretecamper]

That’s debatable,

Everything is debatable.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't like the phrase 'traditional,'

That’s interesting, because as an Orthodox and also as a supporter of other traditional liturgical churches outside of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox community, such as the Traditional Latin Mass communities in the Roman Catholic Church, and other traditional denominations such as the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and other confessional Lutheran churches, such as its communion partners in North America, the Lutheran Church of Canada and the AALC, and the Continuing Anglican Churches, and the Global Methodists and other traditional liturgical Protestants, I expressly embrace it, because in Orthodoxy, what Roman Catholics often refer to as the Magisterium or the Depositum Fidei, we tend to exclusively refer to as Holy Tradition. Thus Traditional is something I take as a compliment.

 

[The Liturgist]

Everything is debatable.

Some things are incontrovertible, for example, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ our True God, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and so on. Whereas in the case of Pope Francis, an argument can be articulated that Fiducia Supplicans represents a departure from Roman Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

I really am surprised by the extent to which Fiducia Supplicans has been downplayed rather than criticized by many. Our mutual and beloved friend @chevyontheriver I recall took a critical view of it, but a number of people seem to want to insist that Fiducia Supplicans is not a serious issue, which I don’t understand, given that the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that homosexuality as inherently disordered and represents a departure from human sexual morality as taught by the Church from the beginning, and therefore, it seems to many, including Raymond Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Gerhard Cardinal Muller, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Sevchuk, and others, that it is wrong and a departure from the Magisterium to authorize clergy to bless homosexual couples as couples, rather than blessing them individually and not as a couple, with the intent that they might realize the immorality of their ways and commit to holy celibacy, or if possible for them, heterosexual marriage within the Church.

 

[concretecamper]

but a number of people seem to want to insist that Fiducia Supplicans is not a serious issue

It is/was a serious issue. But no doctrine was changed/altered.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That’s debatable, at least insofar as the DDF is answerable to Pope Francis, who established it to replace the CDF formerly governed by Gerhard Cardinal Muller; the DDF issued Fiducia Supplicans, which I, and many traditional Catholic friends of mine, are unable to reconcile in terms of its view of homosexuality to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II, and Deus Caritatis Est, and Sacramentum Caritatis Est of Pope Benedict XVI.

Now one could argue that allowing clergy to “non-liturgically bless” homosexual couples is a change in praxis and not doctrine, however, there is the issue of that clashing with lex orandi, lex credendi, and additionally there is the view taken by many traditional Catholics, and also myself, that all formal benedictions given by a priest or bishop, even ex tempore, are liturgical by their very nature, especially in the Roman Rite in which the priests and bishops often sacerdotally represent the people, for instance, in the Solemn HIgh Mass, Requiem Mass and Mass of the Presanctified in which historically only the celebrant would partake of the Eucharist, and even in the Novus Ordo mass, many Catholic parishes continue to provide communion to the laity in one species only, that of the precious Body, with the precious Blood of our Lord being taken only by the celebrant (a prior Roman local council ruled that partaking of the Body amounts to partaking of the Blood.

Additionally, when one considers the traditional Catholics who have opposed Fiducia Supplicans, we are not talking about Sedevacantists or people on the fringe, or retired bishops only, but rather important clergy such as the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which is the second largest denomination in Ukraine after the Eastern Orthodox, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, which is home to a population of German Catholics who were forcibly relocated there after World War II, but who have made a home, and many prefer to live in Kazakhstan rather than returning to Germany as is their right under the German Basic Law, because Kazakhstan, for all its faults, embraces more traditional family values. Additionally, Raymond Cardinal Burke, and Cardinal Sarah were also opposed to Fiducia Supplicans, in addition to a great many other bishops and archbishops.

It was, I think, about a third of Catholic bishops world-wide that went on record against Fiducia supplicans. At least another half studiously avoided supporting Fiducia supplicans. Only a minority played mental gymnastics in trying to support it. Pretty much the same for priests. It was so bad for Team Francis that they had to pretty much say Fiducia supplicans was 'optional'.

Fiducia supplicans cannot be reconciled with good doctrine. So it's a horrid thing. On the other hand, it was not anybody's infallible statement. It's cardinal Fernandez making a wretched mistake and the pope approving the mistake. So what will undoubtedly be needed when a more faithful pope is elected is to have Fiducia supplicans 'withdrawn for further study' and then to disappear down some memory hole permanently. There are a few other documents of the pope Francis era that will need similar treatments, maybe to be salvaged in part.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Some things are incontrovertible, for example, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ our True God, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and so on. Whereas in the case of Pope Francis, an argument can be articulated that Fiducia Supplicans represents a departure from Roman Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

I really am surprised by the extent to which Fiducia Supplicans has been downplayed rather than criticized by many.

It is ignored by almost all Catholics. A few errant bishops and priests and lay people think it's great but for the rest of us.... It's a dead letter that has been 'not received' by the vast majority of faithful Catholics in an exercise of the Sensus fidelium. Pope Francis effectively recognized this by making it an 'optional' teaching, meaning it's a worthless piece of paper. The problem is that Fiducia supplicans has been the excuse for even more sin, making it look like the Church, and even God, approved of that which could never be approved.

 

[CoreyD]

Okie Doke, regarding "Christ is the rock on which the church is built," notice that 1 Corinthians 3:11 states, “For other foundation, no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.” Yet, Apocalypse 21:14 states, "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” The fact that Christ is the only foundation, as 1 Cor. 3:11 teaches, means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. As we can see in this matter, St. Peter’s authority comes precisely from Christ.

The fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20) does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Just as Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14) yet also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to St. Peter (John 21:15-17), he is also the one with the keys (Apoc. 1:18; Apoc. 3:7), but He gives His keys to St. Peter.

You did not use any scripture for your asserting "The fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20) does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to be the rock upon which the Church would be built."
It's simply like saying, the claim is x, and I believe x. Therefore, just because y is true, it does not mean x cannot be also true.

That's similar to Jim Jones saying, "the fact that God has supernatural powers, does not mean that I cannot be God".
There is actually no scripture saying Peter is the rock or foundation on which the church is built.
All the apostles are stones making the foundation, with Jesus as the cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19-22
The other members of the body are the stones making up the building. 1 Peter 2:4-10

This is what the scriptures say.
Anything outside that are ideas of men, claimed to be from God.
That's my final say on that subject in this thread.
If you want to further debate it, you need to post your argument in the other thread, I linked.