Posted on 05/10/2016 6:37:51 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
It seems to me that you would like to interpret the verse as you would like to interpret it rather than how the Catholic Church interprets it. Hmm. Got it. I think we're done here.
Non sequitur. One need not ignore or reject the commentaries to recognize that error may range from trivial to grave, and that within the body of Sacred Scripture, Galatians 2:11 uniquely and unequivocally provides us with the model for individuals to follow when confronted with an errant pope ("But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.").
The questions sedevacantists ostentatiously ignore, for obvious reasons:
1. Where in Sacred Scripture (besides Galatians 2:11) does God directly treat of an errant pope?
2. Where in Sacred Scripture does God provide justification for individuals to leapfrog the Church's chain of command -- to personally excommunicate popes (and in many cases the entire post-1958 Church) -- based on their private judgment?
3. How can those who selectively jettison Sacred Scripture (e.g. the exemplary, unique response of St. Paul when confronted with papal error) and substitute instead an exhausting plethora of opinions, conjectures and speculations from less authoritative sources with which they inundate those who disagree with them in order to buttress their novel position qualify as "traditional" Catholics?
The sedevacantist position is logically incoherent, and smacks of Bergoglianism at its worst. The sedevacantist movement is exposed as a post-Vatican II novelty built on sand.
Clearly the "god of surprises" has been employing his tactics to great effect on both ends of the spectrum.
As Blather succinctly explained, there are different degrees of error. Peter's particular error was of a more trivial nature. However, the verse does not distinguish between degrees of Papal error. This is perfectly in accordance with Catholic doctrine; unlike the reaction of simply invalidating the office of an errant Pope at will. I think we are done here, pius. ~ Have a good day. (Matthew 16:23)
Note
At times I am limited to one word responses - if that.
Wrong. Catholic saints made a point of the fact that the error that was "resisted" was a trivial, non-doctrinal one for a reason: because popes don't publically teach errors in faith and morals to the Church. The fact that Peter did NOT do this (and there is no Scriptural support that Peter did this) helps support the Catholic position that a true pope can not do this.
My comments are not even making it through to you.
Wrong. Catholic saints made a point of the fact that the error that was "resisted" was a trivial, non-doctrinal one for a reason: because popes don't publically teach errors in faith and morals to the Church. The fact that Peter did NOT do this (and there is no Scriptural support that Peter did this) helps support the Catholic position that a true pope can not do this.
Has Francis, though? Despite all of his errors, novelties, and profound shortcomings as a Pontiff, has he ever yet invoked ex cathedra infallibility to define an erroneous doctrine?
That one did but two to you did not.
I wanted to say thanks.
I’m still trying to figure out whether you really just don’t understand the point I’m making or that you’re choosing not to understand the point I am making. Given I think I’ve been pretty clear in what I have said (a number of times) I’m guessing it’s the latter in which case there really is no point in continuing.
Perhaps because "trivial, non-doctrinal" errors were the extent of the errors they had to contend with.
The fact that Peter did NOT do this (and there is no Scriptural support that Peter did this) helps support the Catholic PURELY SPECULATIVE, NON-MAGISTERIAL position that a true pope can not do this.
P.S.
It is an error to invoke "Catholic Saints" as ultimate authorities. One can't say, "This man is holy, I like his opinion, and therefore I will substitute it for the authority of the hierarchical chain of command established by God to govern His Church." The Saints would be first in line to remind us of this truth. Remember St. Gregory of Nyssa? He explicitly taught the heresy of apocatastasis. Might sedevacantists consider excommunicating him next?
Sedevacantists would do well to apply their considerable intellectual talents to defending the Deposit of Faith against attacks by the Church's enemies rather than hunting for theological escape hatches.
Listen, I *get* why these doctrinal errors are resisted by Catholics like yourselves. I just completely disagree that you have the Scriptural support for it that you think you do. I also disagree as to why these "popes" have made these "grave errors in doctrine".
My sedevacantist position is not dogma, I am not forcing anyone to agree with it. After much prayer and research, to me it is the ONLY way to logically explain the Crisis. I suspect that your mother feels the same way that I do.
Now I would appreciate your laying off the anti-sede sentiments because quite frankly your comment about your mother set me off. You don't have the answers either. Your opinion of sedevacantism is just that: your opinion and nothing more.
Altogether about eleven or twelve.
Your "point" is mistaken, pius. You are not at liberty to arbitrarily make a formal heretic out of the Pope when he may simply be in error. Reiterating the same mistaken idea ad nauseam does not a point make. If that is why you intend going forward, however, then there may indeed be no need for continuing.
No, the point about your supposed Scriptural support for YOUR position.
I think you are also blinded by your anti-sede sentiment.
Maybe if you read my post to Blather you’ll finally get the point.
Can you PM me?
Ludicrous accusation. Through the Looking Glass, total reality reversal. Sedevacantists decide to unilaterally excommunicate the Pope and the entire Post-Vatican II Church, and accuse those who remain in the Church of exercising "private judgment". Would be funny it wasn't so sad.
Now I would appreciate your laying off the anti-sede sentiments because quite frankly your comment about your mother set me off.
Not my problem. And last time I checked, this is a FORUM. If I or others express opinions unwelcome to you, simply ignore them.
Nope.
And whenever I discuss these things
I have no problem with others making private judgments in this unprecedented crisis. This is what happens when the Shepherd is struck: the sheep are scattered.
I do have a problem with those who like to point fingers at others as if they don’t do the same.
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.