Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gbcdoj

No, not at all. There is no comparison. Luther opposed the traditional Mass. He opposed the priesthood. He opposed the notion of Sacrifice. He was a heretic. What ever else may be said about the Archbishop, he was not a heretic. He simply stood his ground and was absolutely traditional in exactly the way the Church had been for two thousand years. He would not be complicit in the destruction of the faith as he believed it.

In this case, it was the Pope who was the innovator, like Luther. It was he who was the heretic, the revolutionary, a pontiff who pushed for a pan-religious syncretism and indifferentism that had been opposed by his preconciliar predecessors. It is he who is even yet elevating heretics to the cardinalate and still doesn't "get it". You don't want to admit this--so you ignore the Pope's heterodoxy altogether. But it is at the heart of this conflict.


882 posted on 07/21/2004 7:19:33 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies ]


To: ultima ratio
He was a heretic.

True - but he thought he wasn't.

What ever else may be said about the Archbishop, he was not a heretic.

I think we can give him that.

884 posted on 07/21/2004 7:30:23 PM PDT by gbcdoj (No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 882 | 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