Posted on 03/03/2018 4:52:44 PM PST by ebb tide
Not even close....
It is merely your opinion that sedevacantism is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
Yes, a true and Catholic Peter. To say that where Francis the public heretic is, there is the Church can not be true. To say that the Church that professes the false, Vatican II religion is the Catholic Church is abhorrent.
You’re saying the RCC has been in error since Vatican II?
Please share a recent publication to that effect. What has the SSPX stated officially about Amoris Latitia for example?
Do you know that the SSPX once questioned the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration ... until 2005....when Benedict was the first "Bishop of Rome" consecrated in it? I find that timing extremely suspect.
The SSPX has changed its tune over the years. There is no question about that.
“It’s a cookbook!”
No, the Catholic Church can not teach error in matters of faith and morals. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that an ecumenical council of the Holy Catholic Church can not teach error in matters of faith and morals.... if promulgated by a true pope. A true pope is what puts the official stamp on it.
Who decides what a “true” pope is?
It's either that, or Vatican II is completely Catholic and there was never a substantial departure from the Faith and Magisterium that came before it.
I can only post today, so I don't want to get too involved with you also given you aren't even Catholic.
How would you account for that?
I really can’t disagree with any of your observations. There are clear and dramatic difference between the teachings of the Catholic Church (which are faithfully followed by the SSPX) and Protestant teachings. Quite candidly, they are simply two very different religions. Among many other differences, the Catholic Church was established by God, while all Protestant religions were established by man.
If you read my post as suggesting that the Protestant religions were in any way attempting to mimic the Catholic Church, that would have been incorrect on my part and I apologize. What I was positing was that the modern popes and bishops of the Church are emulating the Mainline Protestant religions––certainly not the Evangelicals who continue to be faithful to their Biblical beliefs.
The false ecumenism of Vatican II (which had been rejected earlier by both the Catholic Church and virtually all Protestant religions) is what the modern leaders of the Church are promoting with unbridled zealousness. In fact, a so-called “ecumenical-Mass” is allegedly under serious discussion in Rome. I would assume that it will be unveiled for the public in the not too distant future.
No, it is not my opinion, but it is my belief based on my readings and understanding of the teachings of the Church. But that being said, I am more than merely sympathetic with those who believe otherwise, as it is a very complex subject matter. Indeed many earlier theologians (St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and many others), have speculated and commented on that possibility, but to the best of my knowledge, there have been no pronouncements by the Church on this important topic.
Without question, I like many other non-theologian but faithful Catholics, struggled mightily with the possibility that this pope and his recent predecessors were all heretics and, a fortiori, invalidly hold or held the Petrine Office. But to be very candid, there were a great many other post-Vatican II Catholic teachings that were brought into question for me as well, once I began to realize that there were serious problems within the Church. For this reason I do not even begin to criticize those traditional Catholics who have come to embrace Sedevacantism.
But inasmuch as I believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and that Jesus Christ has promised us that He will be with us always, reasoned logic has convinced me that Jesus Christ would not allow His Church to be absent a physical head for any extended period of time. As you may be aware, the great anti-Modernist priest, Father Garrigou-Lagrange, observed that even a heretical pope can still remain as the physical head of the Church while not even being a member! This reasoning surprised me, of course, but theologians are far above my pay-grade, an especially men of his caliber. So while I don’t pretend to understand this reasoning, I have as much respect for the faithfulness and the brilliance of Father Garrigou-Lagrange as any other Catholic priest that has lived during the past 100 years.
But I guess my short answer to your very legitimate question would be that the SSPX tells me that this belief is a teaching of the Church that must be followed. And since I’ve come to reason that it is only the SSPX that is following all of the true teachings of the Church, even though some of those teachings (like the one we are discussing) are more difficult to accept than others, we must do that. If I intend to remain a Catholic for the rest of my life(which I do), I am not going to start picking and choosing some of the teachings that I might find disagreeable or less easy to comprehend.
By the way, I’m attaching an anti-Sedevacantist column of John Salza’s that was published in The Remnant last year. It’s in his typically snarky style, of course, but I’m only attaching it because he does happen to raise some valid points on this issue that are worth considering.
https://tinyurl.com/ya5k7vvf
It was nice hearing from you again.
The Roman Catholic Church is just as much a man made denomination as any other. It was not started by God. The Church started by Jesus is the church made up of the body of believers redeemed by Christ that have washed their robes in His Blood Undoubtedly there are some Catholics and Protestants in that Body. But the Roman Catholic Church was neither started by Christ nor holds a monopoly on Truth.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion, but as I had noted, our religions, and hence our beliefs, are very different from each other.
When such a "pope" universally teaches to the whole Church errors in matters of faith and morals that's a huge tip-off that he's not actually pope. Otherwise, God's Indefectible Church becomes Defectible. From a Catholic perspective, that can't be.
But He would allow His Church's physical head to teach His entire Church heresy for any extended period of time?? If His Church has no physical head, it is still indefectible. However, if His Church teaches error in faith and morals via His "Vicar", it is no longer indefectible.
Those that believe that a true pope can teach errors in matters of faith and morals to the entire church believe in a defectible Catholic Church. I know you don't see it that way, but that is in fact what that means. I refuse to believe that. That is heresy.
As it is my belief that sedeplenism (aka SSPX and its Resistance splinters) is not a Catholic position based on my readings and understanding of the teachings of the Church. Like you, I try to be sympathetic to those who believe otherwise.
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.