Author Topic: Sermon 5 Popes present Sunday April 27, 2014 by Fr Chazal (Read 1278 times)

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #15 on:** May 02, 2014, 04:35:20 PM »

The sedes reject the pope because he acted in heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that we can say no one has the right to judge the pope.

The R&R's reject the pope because they feel he rules in error or approaches heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that no one has the right to judge the pope and that goes for nitpicking his every little action to determine whether or not it's valid or at least valid enough for the R&R types.

How are they different? Both groups judge the Pope.

How are they the same? Both groups are adhering to the Catholic Faith to their best of their abilities.

They both refuse to follow his errors, ambiguities and heresies and for that I applaud both camps.

Who can disagree with them? I say over and over again that the post-Vatican II popes are not to be followed because that would be following indifferentism or outright denial of Our Lord. When someone says they are respecters of other religions, then they are saying they respect a person who denies Our Lord and that they respect a religion that empirils an eternal soul. Well, Our Lord said that those who do not believe are condemned already and that the gods of the gentils are devil's and that's good to follow.

Really it can all be distilled to "Do Not Follow Them".

And this advice applies only to this period of conciliar heresy (1962 - present).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2014, 04:41:08 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

The sedes reject the pope because he acted in heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that we can say no one has the right to judge the pope.

The R&R's reject the pope because they feel he rules in error or approaches heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that no one has the right to judge the pope and that goes for nitpicking his every little action to determine whether or not it's valid or at least valid enough for the R&R types.

How are they different? Both groups judge the Pope.

How are they the same? Both groups are adhering to the Catholic Faith to their best of their abilities.

They both refuse to follow his errors, ambiguities and heresies and for that I applaud both camps.

Who can disagree with them? I say over and over again that the post-Vatican II popes are not to be followed because that would be following indifferentism or outright denial of Our Lord. When someone says they are respecters of other religions, then they are saying they respect a person who denies Our Lord and that they respect a religion that empirils an eternal soul. Well, Our Lord said that those who do not believe are condemned already and that the gods of the gentils are devil's and that's good to follow.

Really it can all be distilled to "Do Not Follow Them".

And this advice applies only to this period of conciliar heresy (1962 - present).

The difference lies in this:

One deposes the Pope without authority to do so (despite erroneoue interpretations of Can 188.4);

The other waits for the Church to depose him, should it decide to do so.

So far as I am aware, the only way a pope could be deposed for manifest heresy without a judgment from the Church -via Can. 188.4- would be for the Pope to make an admission of heresy.

And so far as I am aware, he has not made such an admission.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2014, 04:52:00 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

The sedes reject the pope because he acted in heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that we can say no one has the right to judge the pope.

The R&R's reject the pope because they feel he rules in error or approaches heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that no one has the right to judge the pope and that goes for nitpicking his every little action to determine whether or not it's valid or at least valid enough for the R&R types.

R&R does not reject Jorge Bergoglio as pope. They reject his ideas and actions that are contrary to the Faith.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2014, 04:53:49 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
The sedes reject the pope because he acted in heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that we can say no one has the right to judge the pope.

The R&R's reject the pope because they feel he rules in error or approaches heresy (as they see it). The danger of vanity is that no one has the right to judge the pope and that goes for nitpicking his every little action to determine whether or not it's valid or at least valid enough for the R&R types.

R&R does not reject Jorge Bergoglio as pope. They reject his ideas and actions that are contrary to the Faith.

They accept him as pope but reject his teachings. Don't get me wrong, rejected this man is a really good idea.

Jehanne · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2014, 06:41:15 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Bishop WIlliamson puts it much clearer, I think. (Emphasis mine):
Quote from: E.C. CCCXLI
The question is not of prime importance. If they have not been Popes, still the Catholic Faith and morals by which I must “work out my salvation in fear and trembling” (Phil. II, 12) have not changed one iota. And if they have been Popes, still I cannot obey them whenever they have departed from that Faith and those morals, because “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts, V, 29). However I believe in offering answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments, because there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe. In my opinion it is no such thing. “In things doubtful, liberty” (Augustine).

What are your thoughts, my friend?

This is a great quote. There is definitely doubt, but not about the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith.