Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: piusv
I do know that not every Trad believes that Vatican II was “only” pastoral. Considering how Vatican II is the bees knees these days I’m not sure how anyone can believe that it was “just pastoral”. Clearly the hierarchy considers it much more than “just pastoral”. They talk and act as if the Church didn’t exist before it.

From Benedict XVI's own mouth:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

In addition, it is inaccurate to say that infallibility only happens when the pope speaks ex cathedra.

True. It is more accurate to say that since the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, neither Francis nor the Magisterium can formally teach error. There is a clear distinction between bad example versus official pronouncements.

Furthermore, I would argue that what is visible these days is not the Catholic Church. It certainly doesn’t look like the Catholic Church to me. Does it look that way to you? Be honest with yourself.

Yes, quite honestly. Bruised, bloodied and beaten up by Modernists, but unquestionably the Bride of Christ.

IMO, the desire of many to blindly defend every questionable word and action of the Pope and the claim that because the Pope has engaged in questionable words and actions that he therefore cannot possibly be the real pope are opposite sides of the same coin. Both points of view are based on the false premise that the pope cannot err, which is obviously not the case, since only God is perfect.

I've read Coomaraswamy (among others) and though much of what he has written is accurate, I disagree with his conclusions.

74 posted on 06/08/2014 3:53:08 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: BlatherNaut

Well then you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

I still maintain that someone who does not profess the Catholic Faith can not be a true pope.


75 posted on 06/08/2014 4:00:54 PM PDT by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

To: BlatherNaut

And the Sedevacantist view is more than just a view about the heretical acts of a pope. Your putting us on the opposite side of the same coin as the neo-Caths just shows an ignorance of the what it means to be sedevacantist...and, to be honest, although I know you don’t mean to come across that way, it’s offensive to say the least.


76 posted on 06/08/2014 4:08:49 PM PDT by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson