As I was perusing Pius X's Catechism online I found this:


62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?

A: Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.


Are those who acknowledge Francis as true pope "united with him in mind and heart"?

Once again you post much but understand little.  These texts refer to the default disposition that Catholics must have towards the pope.  You would have us believe that Popes are basically inerrant and impeccable in every aspect of their beings.

St. Paul disagreed with St. Peter.

St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that a pope who tries to harm the Church can be disobeyed.

Cardinal Billot resigned from his Vatican post due to disagreement with Pius XI over Action Francaise.

Lots of people disagreed with Pius XI in terms of what he did to the Cristeros.

I disagree with Benedict XV having demoted Cardinal del Val and disbanded Sodalitium.

St. Catherine of Siena disagreed with Pope Gregory XI on the papacy's move to France.

I guess that people should not have disagreed with John XXII's false teaching about the beatific vision.

There have been many, many seriously delinquent popes, scoundrels who disgraced the papacy with grossly immoral lives and false opinions.

SVs like yourselves always takes things out of context and do not apply the proper nuances of Catholic theology to them.

You're much better off arguing from the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium and the Church's universal discipline.

As I was perusing Pius X's Catechism online I found this:


62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?

A: Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.


Are those who acknowledge Francis as true pope "united with him in mind and heart"?

I would like some of Francis' adherents to explain how they are united with him in mind and heart.


Besides that, these are very good quotes. Encouraging and they contain a gem of spiritual advice, which reminds us of obedience and docility towards our lawful pastors, most especially the pope.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Once again you post much but understand little.  These texts refer to the default disposition that Catholics must have towards the pope.  You would have us believe that Popes are basically inerrant and impeccable in every aspect of their beings.

It's a bit disingenuous to compare St Paul's rebuke of St. Peter to what the R&R is doing today.

No, that's not my point.  My point was to use those incidents as context for the quote from St. Pius X.

Notice what I wrote at the end of my post:

You're much better off arguing from the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium and the Church's universal discipline.

My point is that these quotes by themselves do nothing to bolster sedevacantism.

When we resist authority we better have a bullet-proof justification for it because making mistakes in this regard can be potentially fatal to our salvation.

The same should be true when a Catholic in the pew dares to accuse the Roman Pontiff of "Manifest Heresy", decides on his own that he had lost his pontificate, and ends up becoming an outside-of-the-Church schismatic in the process.

But not such bullet - proof of Manifest Heresy exists. Does it, Clemens Maria?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Ladislaus

Once again you post much but understand little.  These texts refer to the default disposition that Catholics must have towards the pope.  You would have us believe that Popes are basically inerrant and impeccable in every aspect of their beings.

It's a bit disingenuous to compare St Paul's rebuke of St. Peter to what the R&R is doing today.

No, that's not my point.  My point was to use those incidents as context for the quote from St. Pius X.

Notice what I wrote at the end of my post:

Quote from: Ladislaus

You're much better off arguing from the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium and the Church's universal discipline.

My point is that these quotes by themselves do nothing to bolster sedevacantism.

I think these quotes help all traditionalists understand what our obligations are with respect to obedience to the legitimate authorities within the Church.  We should never lose sight of what we owe in justice to legitimate authority.  When we resist authority we better have a bullet-proof justification for it because making mistakes in this regard can be potentially fatal to our salvation.  It is unheard of in all of the Church's history to refuse to recognize not only the validity of the sacraments approved by the Pope but also to refuse submission to all his teaching, all his discipline and all his prudential judgements.  I think the quotes from the catechism help to highlight the utter incompatibility of the R&R position with traditional Catholic practice.

But I would agree with you that it is not enough to prove the truth of the SV position. It is necessary to give a theological proof and a quote from the catechism is not enough.  On the other hand, the typical Catholic doesn't need a theological proof to be convinced of the truth of a theological position.  Usually, all they need is an argument from authority and/or the testimony of someone who demonstrates holiness of life.

To the bolded:  I agree as well, but, then again, I wasn't using the catechism quote to "prove sedevacantism". I was using it to point out inconsistencies in the non-sede position though.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Clemens Maria

When we resist authority we better have a bullet-proof justification for it because making mistakes in this regard can be potentially fatal to our salvation.

The same should be true when a Catholic in the pew dares to accuse the Roman Pontiff of "Manifest Heresy", decides on his own that he had lost his pontificate, and ends up becoming an outside-of-the-Church schismatic in the process.

But not such bullet - proof of Manifest Heresy exists. Does it, Clemens Maria?

Well then maybe all the trads should shut up and submit to all that the Novus Ordo Church stands for:  the Novus Ordo mass, the New Canon Law, and Vatican II to name a few.

If we're going to play that game, then who are any of us to call any of that into question?

If Francis is our boss we should do just that. It means the 1917 code is abrogated and that the Novus Ordo is the Roman rite. You wouldn't have to fast during Lent or cover your head if you are a lady, and you could have a beer and a steak 30 minutes before mass. You could also go to mass on Saturday night and have it count for Sunday. If he is Peter, he can bind and loose and these are all good and holy laws.

To the bolded:  I agree as well, but, then again, I wasn't using the catechism quote to "prove sedevacantism". I was using it to point out inconsistencies in the non-sede position though.

One difference between sede's and non-sede's, is that non-sede's understand that our knowledge of the popes sins do not qualify us to depose him.

.....Yes, the faithful may know well that he [the pope] has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.

 

Sede's are to different degrees, obsessed with a circuмstance which they are not qualified to settle. For sede's, it is *the* fundamental problem all trads should be focused on -  so much so that it becomes the all encompassing focus of their attention, up to the point that everything about the faith always relies on and comes back to the matter of the pope.

In these times as throughout history, we are to submit to the pope in all things not sinful or harmful to the faith, same as any superior - that is what God expects of us. When we appear before our Judge, He will not ask us what was our opinion on the legitimacy of conciliar popes.