The papal situation is so unique and confusing - there's no historical precedent to compare it to! Yet these self-appointed interpreters expect us all to agree with their interpretation of the writings of theologians and Doctors as if it were DOCTRINALLY BINDING? That's crazy.
So strange popping back in here when I used to lean more sede but you couldn't be dogmatic back then. (Note: I def. do NOT think Bergoglio has any place in the Church because he was a public apostate pre-"election", and continues: you can't worship several gods, as he did publically before election in that conclave. However, I am not
sure the Seat is vacant; I just can't imagine it's occupied by the current physical "occupier", though there are other possibilities I can almost imagine, not "Pope Michael" of course.)
But your point (from WAY back, sorry) is good I think, and may have historical precedent: with Our Lord's Incarnation, He let Himself be subjected to all manner of sin from Pharisees/Sadducees/maybe infidels, and it
seems to me He healed, taught, etc, and then said follow the Law, go to the Temple and let a priest see you are healed. Also:
The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. —Our Lord, Matt 23
Plus +Jesus and the Holy Mother and many Faithful knowingly subjected themselves to
the known-fallen Temple. Approximately the same Temple that Ezekiel had
seen the Holy Ghost pack up and leave while [Ezekiel] was exiled in Babylon (though I think the Temple was moved a bit in the 500+ years before the Holy Incarnation; the Vatican itself has "moved" a few times, as well.)
Not saying anyone should go glory in the N.O. places of hippie healing
whatever-it-is-they-do. I'm simply not that strong. The new local NO priest who tries to PUSH into our lives (like Jehovah's Witness) wore pink pu--y hat in local march earlier this year and ...is not even "catholic" with little "c": he's atheist, feminist, "chows down on 'Lord's memory dinner' with Lutheran leader but that's okay since he doesn't believe in "historical +Jesus" and he doesn't consecrate his "sammich" (sic) ...oh, and he is a practicing homo.
But worst of all (unless he diddles with kids): this guy is a persecutor of the Faithful who are privately using older Missals and wearing veils and Sacramentals. He's fine if Muslims roll out the prayer mats, face Mecca, and screech to some demon pedophile; he is offended only if one prays in Latin with a veil, or uses a Douay or older Missal, and he will TELL you so, quite publically.
Still, just for me, that quoted Scripture above trips me up. (As do others in Holy Writ, as well — both ways, regarding the vacancy of the Seat!) I think Our Lord's sufferings, and those Saints of the early Church, seem to be where we are: some people have NO priests who are atheist homos that refuse to give even Montini's NO mass, while others may have at least little-"c" priests who
try to say some kind of mass.
So I can't answer, and have decided I'm simply can't be dogmatic either way. But I think Our Lord attending Temple devoid of God — except
Himself — may have been an actual precedent in Holy Writ of attending
Temple after it has fallen to apostates. Not that we're Jєωιѕн, but they had a "foreshadowing" of Mass. Plus
+Jesus being God and apparently taking over the "sermon" readings often is just not appropriate for most of us to do, so I'm not sure Matthew 22's teaching is even applicable.
But I'm not sure it's NOT applicable, either.Our Lord submitted Himself to rulings of Jєωs who knew not what they did (crucified God made Flesh), though He offered Himself freely as Sacrifice for the Faithful, thus fulfilling Holy Prophecy. And yet I doubt He would have abided worshiping Baal "alongside" God/Himself at the Temple; He didn't abide sales of pigeons and got quite physical about it. And there's a big difference between St. Paul trying to teach Greeks about God in pagan buildings to proselytize, and actually worshiping Zeus (which St. Paul did not do!) in some misguided attempt to reach the fallen. The former is holy (proselytizing), the latter is horrible inversion of worshiping God (apostasy).
Does anyone else think Matthew 22 might apply to this question?
ALL SAINTS OCTAVE! Please pray for the repose of the soul of my dad Samuel, who died earlier this year in the Faith. I will add the Faithful of CathInfo to my prayer intentions, as well. Let's get to the graveyards and pray!
Topic: I am considering sedevacantism (Read 23717 times)