Skip to comments.Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Posted on 03/23/2006 12:29:49 PM PST by NYer
click here to read article
This guy is not associated with the SSPX.
In fact, he couldn't even stay in the SSPV.
He is a sedevacantist "independent."
God save us from believers who are more Catholic than the Pope.
It's even harder to believe that men who are themselves excommunicated would presume to accuse the Holy Father of heresy. I am well aware that a great many Catholics (myself included) agree with much of what SSPX advocates; however, the methods they have used are really not all that different than those used by heretics throughout history.
Thanks ... the web site said 'traditionalmass' which I thought fell into one group. Didn't realize it had splintered so much in 40 years.
Wait a second... it is the wrong end up! It is the Pope who is supposed to brand others heretics, not the other way around. Besides, isn't he ex officio infallible?
Anyone can tell who commits heresy, simply comparing what they teach with the Magisterial teachings. We are not Church authorities, so we can not sentence anyone, but that should never stop us from exposing heresy for what it is.
At least some do not water down heresy by calling it mere error.
Also, the Catholic Church has never split into groups or factions; people decide to leave the Church by associating with other groups or by adopting beliefs already anathematized.
Pox on all their houses.
By the way, it's not so much about bringing the Mass back to the dioceses as much as it is holding the Catholic faith. Your original post highlights matters of faith which were the reason why Bishop Sanborn and like-minded people do not want to be in communion with Benedict XVI.
There are some who have questioned the validity of Benedict XVI's episcopal consecration (meaning he would not be a valid pope on those grounds). Just thought you might want to be aware of this.
I don't get it.
Yep, you nailed it.
SSPX, SSPV, Sedevacantist "independent." Is there any real difference among these groups?
Meaningful to them, less so to us.
The lesson here for all of us is not to be to quick to jump to conclusions or cast aspersions about different people or groups. Even with people that may be wrong, there is nothing to be gained from the attacks we have here on Free Republic. No one can claim that they are following the lead of the Holy Father by such attacks or by claiming to weigh in on the status of certain groups or people. He hasn't take such an approach, so why should we?
Yes. The SSPX, while in, at minimum, an irregular relationship with Rome, claim to recognize the Pope as valid. They also are quite possibly on the verge of being regularized.
The others do not and are not.
It is true, though, that there are those within the SSPX (which is a society of priests), and some laymen who assist at SSPX chapels who are functional sedevacantists. What proportion are like this, I cannot say.
Are you intentionally trying to implicate the SSPX in the writings of this nut, Rev. Sanborn, or are you just confusing/obfuscating the issues? He has nothing to do with the SSPX...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.