Agreed. If I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants and Conciliar Hierarchy are legitimate, I would make haste back into full communion with Rome ... though I would still mostly avoid the NOM ... out of personal preference rather than out of principle. Nevertheless, if the NOM was the only Sunday Mass near me, I would feel obligated to assist at it under pain of mortal sin to fulfill my Sunday obligation. And if I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants are legitimate, I would abjure my schism and re-read the docuŠ¼ents of Vatican II with the docility required of Catholics toward the Magisterium. God will not punish a Catholic who submits to the teaching of His Church, nor will He allow it to ruin his soul or lead to his damnation. But R&R don't believe that. They have in fact reduced the Magisterium to nothing more than opining on the part of the one who sits in the See of Peter. As such, it has no more authority or credibility than the work of any given theologian, and must be compared by our private judgment to Tradition. If we find it Traditional, then we agree with it (just like anything we might read that we agree with). Sorry, guys, but this is utterly preposterous and does not even resemble Roman Catholicism.
I'm not sorry. It isn't Catholicism at all. There is no precedent for it outside of the opinions of a handful of theologians, it is a man-made edifice inspired by Satan to sow a spirit of rebellion within otherwise good Catholics.
Just look at every debate on R&R vs sedevacantism here. It quickly devolves into sophistry and name-calling from certain individuals here because they don't have a good answer on how a heretic, aka non-Catholic/someone outside of the Church, can be a valid Pope or how we can sift Vatican II for the grains of Catholicism while ignoring the teaching of Vatican I (which I have quoted a lot lately, Session 4.4) that we have to take any Magisterial teaching by its word, not reinterpret it for a "better understanding"
Poll
