Posted on 05/10/2016 6:37:51 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Nothing is processed. i.e.
Still stuck on that, eh? You've yet to produce any Scriptural support for this verse applying just to minor errors as opposed to greater ones; until you do, there is no solid Scriptural metric for determining how severe a Papal error is allowed to be before it is permissible to simply invalidate his Papacy. Resistance to Papal abuse it what we are given via Galatians 2:11; kindly share a verse where the unique office of the Pope can be invalidated by his subordinates.
I think you are also blinded by your anti-sede sentiment.
I pray so. May God make my eyes see well enough to perceive His Church's Truth, but blind to whatever perverse reasoning leads to sedevacantism.
Presumptuously, unilaterally excommunicating post-Vatican II Catholics, including numerous holy, faithful priests while accusing those who remain loyal to the Deposit of Faith of exercising private judgment? A textbook example of projection.
approved
the last one went with “processed” - as in not.
I'm sorry exactly where did I do accuse all of these people (including you) of this? I don't believe that you are not Catholic. I merely believe that you are wrong in your personal opinion of how to proceed in the Crisis (and wrong to claim Galatians 2:11 supports it). In this craziness, I understand how we are all left to figure things out on our own (as I said the Shepherd has been struck and the sheep have scattered).
In this thread it is you who has made judgments against me and other sedevacantists. It is you who has decided that I am (and all sedevacantists are) not in the Church. I happen to believe that we are all trying to remain loyal to the Deposit of Faith.
So...look to yourself for the projection you cast on me.
You remain blind to the verse itself. It states very clearly that it was Peter’s “conduct”, not his teachings that Paul opposed. Conduct= sin.
But if it makes you feel better, the Protestants in another thread believe he was guilty of doctrinal error.
Did not imply such in any of my posts. Rather, it is sedevacantists who have taken the Subjectivist Leap off the Ark.
In this thread it is you who has made judgments against me and other sedevacantists.
Nope. Have only referenced the objective facts. Why pretend otherwise?
---------
Sedevacantists' criticisms of certain other traditionalists
Sedevacantists claim that they avoid much of the mainstream Catholic critique of traditionalism because their view is that, beginning with John XXIII or Paul VI, one or both of whom and all their successors they consider to be heretics, there is no valid Catholic Pope or body of bishops to whom allegiance or obedience is owed. They criticise non-sedevacantist traditionalists for recognising the recent Popes, on grounds such as the following:[24]...
...Compounding the problem, according to the sedevacantists, is the revising of the rite of Holy Orders in 1968; many believe that priests and bishops consecrated according to the new rite are invalid and could not administer traditional sacraments even if they wanted to. They say this problem applies to the FSSP and even to many SSPX priests, since the SSPX accepts priests ordained in the new rite, although it ordains its own new priests in the old. According to this line of reasoning, Benedict XVI and Francis are only priests, and never received valid episcopal consecration, and therefore have been given no true authority to be Pope, i.e., the Bishop of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
Presumptuously, unilaterally excommunicating post-Vatican II Catholics, including numerous holy, faithful priests while accusing those who remain loyal to the Deposit of Faith of exercising private judgment? A textbook example of projection.
to my post here:
I do have a problem with those who like to point fingers at others as if they don’t do the same.
And you want me to believe that the comment wasn't meant for me specifically. Riiiight.
I am confident that most readers would recognize that my comments are in reference to the belief system of the sedevacantist collective.
Again:
Sedevacantists’ criticisms of certain other traditionalists
Sedevacantists claim that they avoid much of the mainstream Catholic critique of traditionalism because their view is that, beginning with John XXIII or Paul VI, one or both of whom and all their successors they consider to be heretics, there is no valid Catholic Pope or body of bishops to whom allegiance or obedience is owed. They criticise non-sedevacantist traditionalists for recognising the recent Popes, on grounds such as the following:[24]...
...Compounding the problem, according to the sedevacantists, is the revising of the rite of Holy Orders in 1968; many believe that priests and bishops consecrated according to the new rite are invalid and could not administer traditional sacraments even if they wanted to. They say this problem applies to the FSSP and even to many SSPX priests, since the SSPX accepts priests ordained in the new rite, although it ordains its own new priests in the old. According to this line of reasoning, Benedict XVI and Francis are only priests, and never received valid episcopal consecration, and therefore have been given no true authority to be Pope, i.e., the Bishop of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
And I’m quite confident that my last post proves that you were, in fact, talking about me.
Now resorting to telling me what I meant.
I understand that mind-reading is frowned upon on this forum.
Having said that though I'll ask you a very direct question Blather that should result in an answer that does not require any interpretation by anyone:
Do you consider me and other sedes Catholic?
Heck; if there were ZERO Prots on the planet; the separated Catholics would STILL be at each other tooth and nail!
It doesn't matter. So long as Francis remains uncondemned as a formal heretic, and as long as he does not define a false doctrine ex cathedra, this remains a matter of conduct.
But if it makes you feel better, the Protestants in another thread believe he was guilty of doctrinal error.
You refer to the more mainstream Protestants, I presume? Their view may well be closer to the truth than that of the sedevacantists on this issue.
Do you consider me and other sedes Catholic?
Let me answer for him---sedevacantists are NOT members of the Catholic faith. They deny the validity of the clergy ordained after the Second Vatican Council, and therefore disbelieve in the validity of the Catholic Eucharist. All authority of priestly ordination ultimately flows from the Pope to his Bishops; if all of them are invalid, where stands the Church? There can be no clergy, no Mass, and no Sacraments. Why call oneself a Catholic in such a circumstance?
Homer Stokes: These boys are not white! These boys are NOT white! Hell, they ain't even old timey!
Dang!
They must be PROTESTANTS!!!
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
--Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
I’d rather hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. If he doesn’t respond then you are probably correct: he probably agrees with you. Of course, I just want people to be upfront with me.
You are wrong on this point. Fr. Paul Kramer did not become a sedevacantist until Francis issued his heretical, Evangelii Gaudium:
Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked". This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been "revoked" and "abrogated". I have been saying for years that when a "pope" will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic -- not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be "a true pastor but a destroyer". Bergoglio plainly fits the description.
Fr. Kramer was ordained in 1976, long after the evil Robber Council.
Sedevacantists do no disagree with any of this. “Perpetual” means forever, not continuous. Otherwise there could never be interregnums between popes. Also, there is no question that the pope is the successor of St Peter.
Sedevacantists are neither Protestants nor Orthodox Christians.
The question is whether manifest heretics or men who teach heresy to the Universal Church can be valid popes/legitimate succcessors.
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.