Posted on 03/22/2010 10:36:51 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
Modern Traditionalists generally admit the last five popes to have been heretics. Many of them - including Father Feeney, Saint Benedict Center, Most Holy Family Monastery and RJMI - consider popes from before Vatican II to have issued heretical statements. Could, then those popes who condemned Jansenism have been heretical?
We shall consider this a step at a time.
(Excerpt) Read more at romancatholicism.org ...
I am taking no position; I post this merely as an interesting article.
If post Vatican II popes have deviated from the teaching of their predecessors (and I know that this is not a given, though some believe it has happened), then theoretically it could have happened earlier in history as well.
BTW, I in no way endorse this web site, which has a substantial anti-Semitic section. But I do believe this particular issue is interesting.
I know you’re not a sedevacantist anyway and thus won’t agree, but I’m wondering if the logic of sedevacantism doesn’t pretty much make thinking like this inevitable.
Uh no. Only certain groups of them do. When you start out with that false premise, it casts doubt on the rest.
I didn't say that. It's in the article which I posted.
The issue is not whether or not all "traditionalists" are sedevacantists because obviously most are not. The issue is, if one decides to be a sedevacantist on the theory that Pius XII was the "last true pope," does this not open up a can of worms?
Having majored in history and years ago studied the acts and dictums of various popes...
Good Gravy YES. A lot of Popes have been more than appalling!
Innocent III papal bull ‘Sun and Moon’
Alexander VI....beyond belief, his entire ‘reign’
I think it was Pius the 10th, not sure, who said a woman with a tubal pregnancy could not have surgery to remove it.
There is lots and lots of egregiousness to call on historically.
But, guess what? That does not interfere with my faith in God and my love of the Catholic Church.
does this not open up a can of worms?
You betcha. I am amused by those who say in their hearts or out loud, "I am spiritually superior to the pope and know he is in error" and then "I believe that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals." The implicit contradiction creates cognitive dissonance, even to the extent of positing the existence of modern Traditionalists. Fascinating. Who will proclaim the vacant seat to be occupied? A council of sedevacantists?
This is not an 'admission'. This is a claim.
However, this group, along with a number of others, are substantially no different in makeup or behaviour to to the various splitoff groups that go back to the beginnings of the Church. The Popes, speaking as bishops, can be as wrong as bishops have been at various times in history. One must realize that it is Church teaching that matters, and not the opinion of individuals. Augustine got things wrong. Origen got things wrong. More modern bishops got things wrong. It is the continuity of the Church, though, that matters. There are all kinds of theoreticals, admittedly.
Oh goodie and anti-Catholic lust thread
********************
I don't read swill.
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.