Sungenis' argument that he (or we) don't have the authority to make a judgment about the status of George Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is a red herring.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-)
In the end, we, each one of us individually, are responsible for identifying the correct Catholic Church. Getting it wrong, while not a mortal sin, can have dire consequences on the prospects for your own salvation.
Sungenis' argument that he (or we) don't have the authority to make a judgment about the status of George Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is a red herring. In the case of George Bergoglio, we knew he wasn't Catholic even before he started claiming the papacy.This is correct as there were no heretics or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs during GWS. Catholics are allowed to recognise either Fr or It papal claimants at that time. This is why( unlike today) there were no anti-popes on either side of Schism. :incense:
We had saints on all sides of the Great Western Schism but all the papal claimants were actually Catholic.
Decem, You totally missed the point. Didn't I just say that it is NOT a mortal sin to get the pope question wrong? Why don't you re-read my post?Yes, I read your post. You said:
I believe in a God who chooses, in individual election to glory without regard to merits and solely by the gratuitous selection of undeserving individuals by God,Yes, and those who thus believe in Catholic and Thomistic Predestination know that God will bring those who desire to be Catholic but are not, and who strive to sincerely seek the Truth, to become Catholics and become subject to the Roman Pontiff before they die. We know this because dogma teaches it, and doctrine, and dogmatic facts, confirm it. If it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and if all receive sufficient grace to be saved, it follows that all receive sufficient grace to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
but to posit that the elect will "get it right" on this question throws the free will of man,
of men in good faith who are striving to know God through Christ and His established Church according to His revealed truths without denying a single one, into total irrelevance if a man can be damned for "getting the question" of the pope wrong in these damned, confused times of the Church's troubles.
I don't think r&r people are being sincere when they say they "recognize" Francis. Because they act like he's not the pope. They say he is the pope but they ignore him. That's not how Catholics act towards a true pope. You also don't negotiate doctrinal agreements with the pope, the Vicar of Christ.
’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows.