Stubborn, you don't really explain or argue ... you mostly just emote.
Please read the +Lefebvre quotes in the links provide. He's not as sure as you are about your position.
Yes, it's emote to you, but I do not need to read about +ABL - above everything else, it was he who was instrumental in the loss of my confusion in the whole sede matter.
When one comes to the realization that for many decades before V2, certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians taught papal impeccability / blind obedience / and basically, papolatry, and that many of those "liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church", as +ABL says, it is no wonder so many are confused about the pope - they've been taught wrong.
It was
+ABL - who should know, said:
Because the seminaries of today are not teaching anything about the making of a priest; they teach liberal psychology, sociology, humanism, modernism
and many other sciences and semi sciences that are either contrary to Catholic doctrine or have nothing whatever to do with church teachings or with what a priest should know. As for Catholic teachings, they are hardly being taught in today's seminaries.
These ideas have penetrated into the seminaries and throughout the church. And today the church wakes up finding itself in a liberal straitjacket.
Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.
He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question.
Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that.
This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.
This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false.
Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.
After
all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests.
Topic: I am considering sedevacantism (Read 23644 times)