Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]

Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope?  (Read 1311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #50 on: Yesterday at 02:30:49 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 05:34:06 AM
Well, by concentrating on subject matter that the SSPX is not concerned with or in any way implies, you are giving an entirely different context to the matter at hand, one that has nothing whatsoever, absolutely zero to do with the matter at hand. Again, remember, the SSPX have no doubt that the pope is the pope - period.

As for refusing obedience to canon law, read the OP, they covered this subject which ends with the highest of Catholic principles: "In summary, the Society's position is as follows: to recognize the Pope; to obey him insofar as his commands are not wrong; but not to follow the prescriptions that lead, in practice, to the ruin of the Church. It is therefore clear that the SSPX is not schismatic according to canon law, which speaks of a refusal of submission." 

You said: "Is the necessity that there are no other active Catholic bishops?..."  Is explained in the OP: "This is, for example, the crisis of Arianism, where a large number of the world's bishops fell into heresy, while the Pope excommunicated St. Athanasius...." Whether the bishops are valid or not, whether they could ordain trad priests or not - the NO bishops, like during Arianism, are all in error - the SSPX will have their own bishops, they are not going to depend on the NO.

I could go on, but the bottom line is they have everything covered that relates to the excoms in the OP, you just need to read and understand it for what it is.

I understand the SSPX position. It is duplicitous and self-contradictory, as I said. It is dangerous for poorly-catechized Catholics who follow their "thinking." Some of those Catholics will later understand that the SSPX contradicts itself. Plenty of people have already pointed out these contradictions.

And these are not contradictions I am imposing from outside. They arise from the SSPX's own words. Their own docuмent, the one posted in the OP, calls acts authorized by Prevost "not Catholic." If his acts are not Catholic, then he is not holy, and calling him "Holy Father" is a lie. The SSPX wrote both things in the same docuмent. Just let your Yes be Yes and your No be No.

I am trying to help the SSPX. I want the SSPX to do the right thing. I want the SSPX to simply shout from the rooftops the Truth. The reason they did the consecrations is that they do not think Prevost has the Catholic Faith. They said it in a roundabout way in other docuмents they published earlier this year. They play these silly diplomatic games, rather than state clearly that Prevost is not Catholic.

Why do they do that? I hope it is simply because the SSPX is scrupulous about "being outside the Church" if they speak bluntly. But I am not sure why they contradict Catholic teaching and their own stated positions. All I know is that they state things that are objectively contradictory. That is a weakness for the SSPX. And eventually some followers will discover this weakness and no longer trust the SSPX as their spiritual guide. Then those people will be prey for the unholy alliance in the Vatican of which Prevost is the current ringleader.
Logged

Offline songbird

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #51 on: Yesterday at 03:40:53 PM »
It is my opinion that SSPX does and says these things that you post, is because Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is in SSPX.  Know Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.  Inner circle with who in the center/Jew.

Who paid for the VA seminary?  Jew
Logged

Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #52 on: Yesterday at 05:10:41 PM »
There is no moral equivalence between the requirement of every Catholic to distance from things not Catholic, and the decision about whether claimant X or Y is actually the Pope.
Nobody is going to hell one way or another for that decision. You are certainly sinning though when you say it is the same thing as separating from heresy .
Logged

Offline SanskritCrayon

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #53 on: Yesterday at 05:25:31 PM »
Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Yesterday at 05:10:41 PM
There is no moral equivalence between the requirement of every Catholic to distance from things not Catholic, and the decision about whether claimant X or Y is actually the Pope.
Nobody is going to hell one way or another for that decision. You are certainly sinning though when you say it is the same thing as separating from heresy .
That would create a confusion of laws, as the sedevacantists would say that we are obliged under pain of mortal sin to abstain from meat on Friday but the Recognize and Resist would say that we are not, but it is highly recommended to do so. Same with the 1983 Code of Canon Law - if we're recognize and resist, then we have to accept most of it but not the errors, but if we're sedevacantist, we have to reject all of it. So the question remains: does a public heretic have the right to loose and bind the faithful? The SSPX is literally working in the framework of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The SAJM is a bit more cautious, but a similar situation exists. It is confusing to have some people say that it is a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday and others say that it is not as long as we do some kind of penance according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It is confusing to say that a public heretic has the authority to change so many laws and to bind the faithful by that.
Sedevacantists like Michael Wilson on SubStacj have said things like this:


I go to the SSPV now and I am indeed a sedevacantist (holding out for the slight possibility that I might be wrong), but you see the problem here. Sedevacantism tells us we must not presume that a doubtful pope has teaching authority to bind and loose the faithful, and that we must choose the safer path. Otherwise, we may potentially err in saying that this or that law is lawful when in fact it may not be due to obscure factors we don't know about.
Yet in spite of what is said here, I have heard SSPX priests say that "unfortunately" the faithful are no longer obliged to fast on certain days, as if the implementation of a disciplinary law can be "burdensome or even useless." They seemed to be saying that it was a "bad idea" for the Pope to change the laws in this regard and others.

This is just some food for thought. I'd be curious as to what others think. I'm not here to promote dogmatic sedevacantism.

Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #54 on: Yesterday at 05:33:09 PM »
Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Yesterday at 05:10:41 PM
There is no moral equivalence between the requirement of every Catholic to distance from things not Catholic, and the decision about whether claimant X or Y is actually the Pope.
Nobody is going to hell one way or another for that decision. You are certainly sinning though when you say it is the same thing as separating from heresy .

I never said you were going to hell for getting the identification wrong. That's a straw man. The issue goes way beyond mistaken identification or getting a test question wrong.

Why don't you understand that for most Catholics the Pope is their rule of faith. Most don't know their faith very well. So they look to the Pope as their guide. Not to Tom and his merry band of 20-somethings.

If you tell them that heretic Bob is the Pope you are scandalizing those people, and many will simply follow heretic Bob into their own destruction (mortal sin). They will not join your little band of Resistors.

The false Pope knows human nature. He knows if he suggests, like the serpent did to Eve, that certain behaviors are A-OK in God's eyes, then most Catholics will take the bait. He'll say, "Surely you aren't going to die (spiritually) if you sterilize yourself. Come on. Jesus is a kool dood. Long hair and sandals, bro. He gets us. Be fruitful and multiply...but do it responsibly."

That is the danger you do not understand. If Tom simply ignores the Pope but spends every waking moment bashing Sedes, people will think Tom is just weird. But Tom just confirmed for them that heretic Bob is "the Pope." Most sane Catholics understand that you do not ignore a true Pope. They will not ignore him. It is prophesied. And you are not helping them understand why they must ignore him.

They must ignore him because he is an agent of Satan. He will lead them astray. He is a pied piper. Calling him "the Pope" or "the Holy Father" is anti-evangelization.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
« previous next »