gladius_veritatis
Reputation: 1186
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 7,126
|
| MichaelSolimanto said: | | [Your vision of the Church is not reconcilable with tradition. |
And the V2 religion is? Please explain, MS.
| Quote: | | That those who deny the need for a visible head blur the idea of the Church, for without the visibility of the head there can be no visible Church. |
Who has denied the need for a visible head, MS? Not I. I simply claim there is not one at present - which has been the case over 250 times throughout history. Please do not tell me you think there must always - i.e. at every moment - be a visible head?
| Quote: | | NO theologian that ever existed claimed there would could a time when there would be no teaching Magisterium, no visible head of the Church (Vat. I states infallibility otherwise)... |
This has been rather ably dealt with by Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD - who received his doctorate in theology in 1941 and is a sedevacantist. Btw, have you read all the theologians, making it legitimate to use the word "NO"? 2Btw, I know EVERY theologian realized that the Church is without a visible head each and every time the Pontiff dies.
|
.........................
+ Vincit veritas +
|
| Posted Apr 3, 2007, 9:38 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Kephapaulos
Reputation: 169
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,180
|
How do you explain Vatican I's anathema attached to a dogma saying that the successors of St. Peter are PERPETUAL, considering of course that there have not been very long interregna?
|
.........................
"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)
|
| Posted Apr 3, 2007, 9:57 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
