| St Matthew Ayariga St Issam Baddar Samir |
"A stopped clock is right twice a day." Bergoglio got it right with the 21 Coptic Martyrs of Libya. I can't say much for Blessed Carlo Acutis and definitely nothing for Servant of God Pedro Arrupe, SJ, but the 21 Coptic Christian men beheaded by ISIS terrorists on the beach at Sirte, Libya deserve to be known saints of the Coptic Church and, yes, of the Catholic Church as well.
At this point many people will not finish reading this post, but rather race to the bottom of the page and comment that I'm a heretic, evil, anti-Catholic, still a protestant and all sorts of Ecclesiam Nulla Salus statements. That's your opinion, and this is mine. Deal with it. I'll ask for the intercession of the 21 Coptic Martyrs, you ask for the intercession of Carlo Acutis or Pedro Arrupe and we'll see whose prayers are answered.
Everyone knows the story of the beheading of the 21 Coptic Christians in 2015 with dull bread knives (therefore making their death even more painful) and the mingling of their blood with the Mediterranean Sea. When it was first put up on the internet, I watched the shortened video where filming was cut off at the moment the terrorists started their slaughter. Those 21 men, calm and resigned, were something to behold - like early Christians in the Roman Colosseum. Watching the video of them just before their deaths we can be certain that God surrounded these martyrs with the same grace that He did with Christians during the Diocletian persecutions.
The 21: A Journey into the Land of Coptic Martyrs by Martin Mosebach gives a good analysis of living in Muslim Egypt as a Coptic Christian and the atmosphere the 21 were born into. What gave them the courage to face their horrific death at such a young age was their deep love for God and ingrained knowledge that each individual Christian must bear Christ's cross.
Below is the story of St Issam Baddar Samir, age 25 (not 21).
 |
| Icon of the 21 Coptic Martyrs of Libya Their Feast Day is February 15th |
Preemptive, strawman dismissal of anyone who has misgivings about referring to adherents of a schismatic church as martyrs of the Catholic Church aside, what are we to make of the apparent brushing aside of the consistent belief and practice that schismatics are not to be considered martyrs? Was the Church wrong then, or is it now? Ah well, I suppose it must all be chalked up to the God of Surprises
ReplyDeleteThe Church was wrong then. Francis says do.
DeleteWell, if people think Bergoglio is a heretic by doing such things, why don't they do something about it? If 21 Christians (albeit not Catholic like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi) were beheaded by Muslim terrorists for not denying Christ, their last words being "Jesus and Mary" and you think it's wrong that they're in heaven or to be venerated as saints saved by Christ, why don't you get priests and bishops and cardinals to DO SOMETHING? Say that Bergoglio is an anti-pope and get him out of the Vatican and Rome. Will the Cardinals wait until Bergoglio dies then we have Tucho as pope?
ReplyDeleteThe Coptic Church just ended "ecumenical dialogue" with Rome over Fiducia Supplicans. Ponder that for a moment.
DeleteThe Catholic Church's hierarchy is either too cowardly or "in on it" when it comes to calling out Bergoglio as an imposter.
"Mr Nick
ReplyDeletere: "what are we to make of the apparent brushing aside of the consistent belief and practice that schismatics are not to be considered martyrs?"
I am ignorant on this matter. Do you know if this belief is small "t" tradition or big "T" (Deposit of Faith) Tradition?
Thanks.
God bless
Richard W Comerford"
"At this point many people will not finish reading this post, but rather race to the bottom of the page and comment that I'm a heretic, evil, anti-Catholic, still a protestant and all sorts of Ecclesiam Nulla Salus statements. That's your opinion, and this is mine. Deal with it"
ReplyDeleteSorry. but your 'opinion' contradicts an infallibly defined dogma.
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
I want to particularly emphasize this part of that dogmatic definition:
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
These men were not Catholic, they are not martyrs, and can never be considered martyrs. They cannot be publicly honored as such, and to do so is to contradict the teaching of the Church, infallibly defined, at that.
Now we don't know what happened in their final moments. It is possible that, known only to God, they were given an opportunity to know the truth of the Catholic Faith and maybe accepted it, and may have died as Catholics, unknown to us. We don't know that though. As far as we know, they died rejecting the Catholic Faith and thus Christ, regardless of what they said before dying.
Assuming they actually died as Catholics, though unknown to us, engaging in PRIVATE prayer, asking their intercession might be permissible on that basis, but calling for PUBLIC prayer, is not only forbidden, it's practically blasphemous.
You have openly declared yourself to be a heretic.
That's the real truth, not merely my opinion. Deal with it.
"Mr Albert:
DeleteRe: "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Can Marcel Lefebvre be saved?
Babes in the womb?
The mentally ill?
Abraham, Issac and Joseph?
God bless
Richard W Comerford"
ReplyDelete
"Mr Albert:
DeleteRe: "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
First, I have read some of your comments in various places in the past, and you usually made some good points, however, it seems you have now become the 2020's Stephen Hand. (No offense to Mr. Hand if he happens to see this, he at least woke up and got back to reality.) Now onto your questions.
"Can Marcel Lefebvre be saved?" Well, since he died 30+ years ago, that's a stupid question. Either he is Heaven, or Purgatory, or Hell. We don't know what happened at his particular judgment. But if asked, I would say Purgatory. A lot of people love to judge Arbp. Lefebvre, but how many of these people ever even met him, let alone actually knew him, and had his knowledge of what was going on in the Vatican?
"Babes in the womb?" Really? If you knew the Catholic Faith, you would know the answer to that. Unbaptized infants go to Limbo. You can argue that all you like, but that is what the Church taught prior to Vatican II and in fact still does teach. And don't try to throw Benedict XVI at me. He did not definitively declare that Limbo ceased to exist or that people no longer go there.
"The mentally ill?" Really? Ultimately, only God can judge a person, but again, if you knew the Faith, you would know that such people would have a diminished capacity in making moral choices, and might not be held to the same level of responsibility for what they did, as someone who was not.
"Abraham, Issac and Joseph?" Again, if you knew the Faith, you would know the answer, but, they lived under the OLD LAW, which had different requirements for salvation.
"God bless" And you too.
Richard W Comerford"
Mr Albert
Deletere: "no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Reportedly Lefebvre died excommunicate. Outside "the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Again. Can he be saved?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mr Albert
Deletere: "EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
How can a mentally ill person who does not know of the existence of the Catholic Church be in unity with and in the bosom of said Church?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mr Albert
Deletere: "they lived under the OLD LAW, which had different requirements for salvation."
So the Old Testament Patriarchs were not "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Are you really that ignorant? The Catholic Church did not exist until Christ founded it. The Old Law was based on the necessity of belonging to the (then true) religion, on believing that God would one day send a Savior who would die to redeem us from sin as well as obeying His Laws (the 10 Commandments), and also worshipping Him by going to the Temple, etc. The Old Law was a prefiguring of what was to come, which
Deletewas fulfilled by Christ, who founded the Catholic Church and instituted the Sacraments. It's clear that you don't know even basic facts about the Catholic Faith.
Re: Arbp. Lefebvre: You said it yourself, Reportedly..., were you there when he died? Were you given a special vision of his Particular Judgment? I don't recall ever seeing any comment where you claimed such, so I'm going to assume that you did not. As such, how do you know what happened, or what his final moments before judgment were like? You don't know, and neither do I. So until you have some absolute evidence that Arbp. Lefebvre really is in hell., it's best to stop talking on this subject.
DeleteRe: mentally ill. Good question, but that's also the same kind of argument people who love to attack so-called "Feeneyites". The bottom line is this. We do not know what happens at death with absolute certainty. There are the near death experiences people have had (or claim to have), but once a person dies, and does not come back, we have no way of knowing what happened to them in those moments between their soul leaving their body and being judged by God. It's said that there is moment after death when we are given a chance to choose to finally repent of our sins, or to reject God. If that's true, then obviously the mentally ill person would have the same choice, and thus be aware of God.
Re: your 3rd comment: answered farther below.
While proclaiming me to be a heretic (yawn) you're at the same time saying that Francis is a heretic. Since you're so Catholic you then need to get Francis out of the Vatican. Get him out of Rome. Since he's a heretic he needs to be removed and replaced.....but not with Pope Tucho.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming this was directed to me, if so, not surprised by your (yawn) reaction. But as others have said, how do you propose to get Francis out of the Vatican? Please, give us your game plan.
Delete"Ms M:
ReplyDeleteRe: "Get him out of Rome."
How?
Are you going to arrest him?
Neither you nor I have the authority to judge a Pope.
And you have gone beyond judging a Pope but dictating his successor.
God bless
Richard W Comerford"
Richard, you need to think about what you're reading before commenting. Did I say Bergoglio is a heretic? No. I said that Shawan Albert is saying Bergoglio is a heretic because it was Bergoglio who said The 21 are to be commemorated on the Catholic martyrology. Furthermore, what in heavens name is wrong with guessing who a next pope might be? I suppose you think St Malachi is a heretic.
ReplyDeleteActually, I did not say Francis was a heretic, though I can understand how you might have inferred that. I have my own private opinion on that subject, but what difference does it make? My opinion isn't going to change anything. What is going to change things is if Francis dies, the Cardinals wake up and depose him, or the Swiss Guards wake up and toss him out of the Vatican. The first one is inevitable, but who knows when it will happen? The other 2, highly unlikely.
DeleteMs M:
DeleteRe: Richard, you need to think about what you're reading before commenting.
Kindly read my actual post.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
It's really unfortunate that there can be no fruitful discussion on this point. A question of how to fit this in a "hermeneutic of continuity" is hardly an accusation of heresy. And even if it was--am I to march on Rome? Start a canonical trial? Goodness, most fields only need one strawman, but apparently this one requires an army!
ReplyDelete"Well, if people think Bergoglio is a heretic by doing such things, why don't they do something about it? If . . . you think it's wrong that they're in heaven or to be venerated as saints saved by Christ, why don't you get priests and bishops and cardinals to DO SOMETHING? Say that Bergoglio is an anti-pope and get him out of the Vatican and Rome. Will the Cardinals wait until Bergoglio dies then we have Tucho as pope?"
This is such a jump to conclusions that it beggars belief. Seriously, to a fellow layman asking a question, *that* is your response? My goodness, this goes behind "protesting too much" to sheer bloody-mindedness.
Let's be clear--there is a question, an ostensibly reasonable one, of how we square *this action* with the Church's prior consistent teaching and practice. To date, I have never seen an explanation of how to square the two (and I'm BEGGING for one). All I've seen is aggressive, anti-rational assertions that "If you think this action is wrong then you think I'm a heretic and that the Pope is too!" Seriously? That is the best there is to explain it? We can't even get into the Mike Lewis level of pedantic thread-needling; we are stuck with papo-centric fideism.
I really want to see someone take up this question--perhaps the development in the Church's understanding of "extra ecclesiam etc." has developed, as with the unevangelized and the unborn. Perhaps there is a reasonable hope that God saved those men regardless. Whatever--*some* explanation would be better than *none.* But no, I suppose that is too much to ask. We are left with asserting, "The pope says, so it must be right," which does bear weight. But a hallmark of Catholic belief is that it is ultimately rational, e.g., there is always an explanation as to why the Churchpope said so, at least in a scholastic sense. But the last eleven years appear to have rendered many people forgetful of, or even antagonistic to, that idea.
Appeals to emotion ("But they died such horrific, heroic deaths, all because they wouldn't repudiate their belief") or consequentialism ("It helps ecumenism!" Side note: so much for that) don't actually cut it. Ultimately, it's quite sad.
Re: "Did I say Bergoglio is a heretic? No."
ReplyDeleteDid I say that you said Bergoglio was a heretic? No.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Nick D,
ReplyDeleteCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service will not let me publish my reply to you. I changed several of the words (pertaining to the hierarchy and a certain sexual orientation) and my comment still would not pass Google's policy. I have the comment saved on my computer. If there's a way to privately send it please let me know through emailing Mary Ann.
Thank you,
Susan
Nick D,
ReplyDeleteWhat you think I think is erroneous on your part. I absolutely cannot stand Bergoglio. It makes me nauseous to so much as look at a picture of him. He's an impostor, whether one thinks he's the pope or not. If he's the pope, he's an impostor. If he isn't the pope, he's an impostor.
People thinking Bergoglio as "definitely pope" defend everything he does albeit mostly by gaslighting and painful word-twisting. I was saying to Catholics who say that Bergoglio is the pope yet disagree that the 21 Coptic Martyrs are in heaven or can be commemorated by the Catholic Church, that...well, Bergoglio, YOUR POPE that you defend all the time, says the 21 Copts are in heaven to be celebrated as saints and their Feast Day is February 15th, so why don't they agree with him? Don't call me a heretic...YOUR POPE said so, so is HE also a heretic?
In other words, they need to put their money where their mouth is. They want to believe he's the pope then they need to also believe what he says and does.
Seems as if Ann Barnhardt is correct. Bergoglio is an easy fix. The hierarchy needs to call a simple press conference to state that Bergoglio is an impostor and fly him out of the Vatican and back to Argentina. It would be easy except all the sodomitical hierarchy on the planet would go on a rampage since they're in control of the Church these days, and also the secular
world.
"They want to believe he's the pope then they need to also believe what he says and does."
ReplyDeleteBINGO!!!
Mrs. Mathiesen,
ReplyDeleteThat response is non-responsive to my post. I'm not interested in throwing around accusations of heresy, anti-popery, etc. or vice versa (and I don't think I have) because of the inclusion of the 21 Copts in the Martyrology; I'm very interested in getting an explanation of how that action "fits" within Catholic teaching. If there's no good explanation, maybe that says something--maybe that means the accusations of heresy are correct. But as far as I can tell, that's an open question that no one (besides some sede bloggers whom I can't really put any stock in) seems to be wiling to take up, and so I'm left taking an "agnostic" position on it. That is to say, maybe it was error, maybe it wasn't, and I don't have the tools to consider it either way. I'll stop repeating my questions here because I can't get my actual point across.
Sorry--forgot to enter my name
DeleteNick D,
ReplyDeleteThe answer you seek lies in Baptism - Baptism of Blood - and whether or not you believe in Feenyism. After that comes Bergoglio's wanting to unite Christian churches. Unfortunately for him, as soon as the following was posted, the Coptic Church broke off all dialogue with the Catholic Church because of Fiducia Supplicans.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2023/may/documents/20230511-patriarca-tawadrosii.html
Okay, I understand and accept the teaching of baptism of blood. Shockingly, I am not a Feeneyite; what an odd thing to suggest, especially after all of the hockey-hurling about heresy accusations above.
ReplyDeleteBaptism of blood, though, has been part of Church teaching in some way since the Patristic period; but declarations of the exclusion of heretics/schismatics as martyrs in, e.g., the Council of Florence, came in the context of baptism of blood already being part of Church teaching. So, it should stand to reason that the latter takes into account baptism of blood but excludes heretics/schismatics from it.
Moreover, I'm doubtful baptism of blood really applies here, as the Copts were presumably baptised already, but in a heretical/schismatic Church, in which case Florence would apply unambiguously--but the Copts having been added to the Martyrology, one looks for an explanation, if there is one, as to how it all fits together (as I said above--was the Church wrong then or is it wrong now?).
But assuming baptism of blood applies, arguendo... This all leads to a similar set of questions: was the Church wrong at Florence to exclude heretics/schismatics from the baptism of blood; is She wrong now to do what appears to be the opposite; or is there some other development of the doctrine of salvation that allows the two teachings otherwise in tension to reach accordance? Or am I simply misreading how the two doctrines apply individually and interactively? Again, if anyone knows of or has an explanation on this, I am all ears.
And what of St. Charles Lwanga and his companions--should the Anglicans killed by the wicked king at the same time as St. Charles Lwanga and his Catholic companions also be considered martyrs and venerated as such? After all, the Anglicans didn't break off ecumenical relations after Fiducia Supplicans; they had made a similar decision earlier in the year! Ecumenism for the win!
I suppose in this age of Vatican II any Catholic can believe what they want. After all, Joe Biden supports abortion and wants to overturn Roe vs Wade if he wins in 2024 and the USCCB hasn't said one peep about that or him at all ever in Biden's life. Same for Pelosi. The Novus Ordo hands out Holy Communion to the tune of the Chicken Dance. Half the people in the pews believe what the Church teaches, while the other half are Marxists. Therefore I suppose Francis, being a Marxist and possibly a Free Mason himself wanting to change even the Our Father, can do whatever he pleases. However, in this instance I agree with him. The Vatican document reeks of Free Masonry. Nevertheless, I love the 21 Coptic Martyrs and have asked for their intercession in past years (they were martyred in 2015) and prayers have been answered. Also, why is Carlo Acutis is saint? And the horrid Pedro Arrupe? Do you agree that they are saints? Test them out...ask for their intercession.
ReplyDeleteMr Albert
ReplyDeletere; "Unbaptized infants go to Limbo."
Limbo is not now nor has it ever been part of the Deposit of Faith.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
That's the oft repeated claim of people who don't believe in the Catholic Faith. So what happened to all those good people who died before Christ was crucified, died and was buried?
DeleteThey didn't go to Heaven, since it was closed to mankind after the Fall, those who were good and obviously not condemned to Hell, went... where? Limbo, aka Abraham's bosom.
Even if Limbo doesn't really exist (yeah, sure), then where do unbaptized babies go? They are guilty of Original Sin. Sin cannot exist in Heaven. Thus they cannot go to Heaven.
Mr Albert:
ReplyDeleteRe: "That's the oft repeated claim of people who don't believe in the Catholic Faith."
The Catholic Faith does not hold that Limbo exists.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Really? Prove it.
DeleteI'll take the word of The Catechism Explained by Spirago & Clarke (p. 188-189 of the Tan Books reprint from the 1990's) as well the 1957 edition of Denzinger's (among other sources) over your assertion any day.
Mr Albert:
DeleteSt Augustine (354 – 430 AD) wrote that unbaptized children who died went to Hell. This writing caused shock among the faithful. Other theologians then speculated that the souls of unbaptized children went to a place they called Limbo.
Limbo is not found in the Deposit of Faith which is God's public revelation to man which ended with the death of the last Apostle (usually thought to be ST John) @ 100 AD.
God bless
Richard W Comerford