Some are more legitimate than others...
That's because this person, we're assuming, has not wittingly or willingly committed the sins of heresy, apostasy or schism. He isn't personally responsible for those sins which destroy unity with the Church.
This has all kinds of canonical implications which I can't address, since I am pretty comprehensively ignorant of canon law. I do know that most Protestants are technically eligible to receive the other Sacraments, (e.g. my baptized-Baptist husband, marrying me, received the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony).
In an extreme situation, Protestant in danger of death could receive he Sacrament of Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, probably all the prayers and sacraments for the Dying. You hear about this happening in situations of war, epidemic and natural disaster.
I don't know, but I suppose that popes in historic eras that faeatured a lot of actual, personal defection from the Faith, or large-scale, continent-wide schism, meant to address the situation at hand. A person who intentionally commits apostasy, heresy or schism is, by that act, intentionally separating himself from the Body of Christ.
If he didn't know and intend that, then --- well, you're not morally answerable for a choice when you didn't know what you were choosing. The practical maxim is, "We know where the Church is, but we don't know where he Church is not."
We have only exterior evidence to go on. But God is the Judge, and he judges the heart.
That's as well as I can figure it. If you want more, you'll just have to consult a canon lawyer.
On the topic of this bizarre papacy, I am not morally sure whether Jorge Bergoglio is the pope or not. It seems that upon his election, he was received as pope, unanimously, by all the active bishops and cardinals. Historically, to be considered an anti-pope, you had to be a member of a faction which disputes a conclave.
This is a surreal case, because in retrospect --- what a lot of us didn't realize at the time ---there were some pretty disputable things about the conclave.
There's emerging evidence hat the March 2013 conclave was strategized by the members of the so-called "Sankt Gallen Group" (or "Mafia"). Even without the rumors of the lying pervert Cardinal (now "Mister")("Uncle Ted") McCarrick lurking around the Termini handing out fat envelopes of euros, McCarrick himself has openly credited himself with "managing" the election, and there's a guy just begging for enhanced interrogation if I ever saw one.
But I expect he'll die and take his secrets to the grave, and get perhaps a nice perch in the Molten Lava Spa from his true master.
There's the question of whether Bergoglio has de facto separated himself from the true and Catholic Faith even before his election; which if he had, would invalidate the election since no heretic can exercise any office, elected or appointed, in the Catholic Church.
The long and short of it, is that we are in a state of bizzarro-world confusion because the main opponent of the real papal magisterium, happens to be the pope.
I don't think this has ever happened in quite this way before --- a putative pope attempting to use papal authority to systematically deconstruct Catholic doctrine --- and there doesn't seem to be a remedy except for a literal Act of God, e.g. a well-timed cerebral vascular or maybe myocardial "event".
I have always been told that anything you can legitimately hope for, you can legitimately pray for. Lord have mercy. Let us pray.
That's because this person, we're assuming, has not wittingly or willingly committed the sins of heresy, apostasy or schism. He isn't personally responsible for those sins which destroy unity with the Church.
That is quite a big change from what Roman Catholicism used to say about people who were not Roman Catholic.
But again the error here is presuming one has to be in unity with a denomination.
For salvation, at least in the New Testament, one has to have faith in Christ...and only Christ.
I was baptized into Christ not the catholic church. i am not and will never be a member of the Roman sect in any sense no matter what you say.
Just what is he deconstructing?
I can never figure out just WHY you Catholics are so upset with him.
(But then; #NeverTrumpers confuse me; too.)
Oh; I think I see the problem.
Some are more legitimate than others...
Naw, that only works for Catholics, Mormons and some 7th Day Adventist groups...In fact most of the Protestants get baptized only AFTER we become a member of the Body of Christ...Any baptism before that is illegitimate...
A person becomes a member of the Body of Christ when the SPIRIT baptizes him into that body, and not when he gets wet. The SPIRIT baptizes every believer into the Body at the moment of saving faith.
As such, water baptism does not save, but is the first act of obedience after being saved. It is not a sacrament that saves nor places one into the Body.
"I do know that most Protestants are technically eligible to receive the other Sacraments, (e.g. my baptized-Baptist husband, marrying me, received the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony).
Marriage is not a sacrament. Sorry.
"In an extreme situation, Protestant in danger of death could receive he Sacrament of Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, probably all the prayers and sacraments for the Dying. You hear about this happening in situations of war, epidemic and natural disaster.
None of which saves.
Best
Which is contrary to years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”
Another council comes along and creates distinct divisions such as by asserting,
there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ," …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church,” the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”
[And even] the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God," "They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth."
The RadTradCaths cite the former as being the true RC teaching, while the ecumenical shades hold that V2 is the interpreter of the former, though they interpret V2..
That's because this person, we're assuming, has not wittingly or willingly committed the sins of heresy, apostasy or schism.
Which is an interpretation of “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved,” (Lumen Gentium 14)
Now if I did know of a truth that such and such a church was uniquely the one true church and necessary for salvation, and refused to be part of it, then indeed I would be damned.
However, as for "know," I certainly know that Rome and the EOs, Mormons and other elitists claim to be made necessary by Christ, but i also certainly know that none of them (or any) are uniquely the one true church (which is only the body of Christ), and necessary for salvation.
And as for "necessary," even if it were true that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, in the sense that the Jews were, then it does not follow that one should join it now.
However, the popes and councils who denied salvation to all who were in the bosom of their church and subject to the pope did not engage in such equivocation, while the fact that a later council can come along and "clarify" teachings to such an extent and degree that 60 years of schisms and sects have resulted sets a precedent for more, and does not enhance the magisterial office of Rome.
On the topic of this bizarre papacy, I am not morally sure whether Jorge Bergoglio is the pope or not.
So many Catholics do not even know for sure who the earthly head of their church is? Meaning the magisterium has caused more problems for the faithful, and failed to solve them.
As one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html