But all the Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction also accept Vatican II and the New Mass. And while some might say Vatican II is technically not infallible, they aren't going to say that Vatican II was destructive to the faith or anything like that. Not one.
You once argued to me that even Athanasius Schneider (the very best bishop with jurisdiction at this point) isn't at all solid because the New Mass is displeasing to God. Yet its universally accepted as *not* a sacrilege.
I've said before I don't know whether its dogmatically certain that Francis is Pope. I'm questioning the logic on which that is based. I do think we should presume that he's the Pope unless/until we are told otherwise by competent authority. But is it absolutely certain? I don't know.
Absolutely. Every single "bishop with jurisdiction" unanimously approves, endorses, and teaches Vatican II. These R&R jokers hold that universal consensus backs Bergoglio but then claim that universal consensus is irrelevant in endorsing these errors and harmful disciplines. Both are a function of the same, the infallibility of the
Ecclesia Credens. So if you must accept Bergoglio because of this universal consensus, then you must accept Vatican II and the New Mass by virtue of the very same universal consensus. R&R are a bunch of hypocrites in atttempting to apply the universal acceptance criterion.
Another example of R&R wanting to have their cake and eat it too, of maintaining contradictory propositions at the same time. That is invariably the sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 36915 times)