I did not even read the post because the title itself was so repulsive. More and more since bergolio people are trying to convince themselves, kind of like DePauw in the 60's.
He's just gotta be Pope. He's just gotta.
Believe it or not, some of us (maybe more than a few) don't really spend a lot of time worrying about whether Francis is pope or not. I get the impression that Sedes think that non-Sedes are always trying to convince themselves that the Pope is really the Pope. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Is Pope Francis a modernist who is trying to change the Church? Yes. But our Lord did not guarantee that we'd never have a Pope who would hold heretical views.
I, for one, don't obsess over it. But I often think that some Sedevacantists obsess over the issue, and rarely think of anything else. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
And there are people on this forum who "obsess" over the h0Ɩ0cαųst, or Fr. Feeney, or Vladimir Putin.
Personally, I think the issue of who is the Vicar of Christ to be at least marginally more important than those issues.
Of course understanding EENS as the Church understands rather than how Feeney did is nothing to sneeze at either. Dogma is important. Feeney continues to wreck havoc on the Church 'til this day.
Okay, I should have been more specific.
Obsessing over whether or not the Holy Office letter of 1949 to Fr. Feeney was in and of itself a dogmatic docuмent, and other minutiae that has no bearing on the overrall issue.
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton
Do you at least agree with the bold statement made by Fenton above?
Yes of course. My point is that many people continue to banter back and forth on the issue of the authority of the letter in and of itself,?which, while settled, is not in itself as important as the dogmas.
In other words, baptism of blood and desire are true regardless of the letter, yet some people act as if it hinges solely upon that, which it doesn't.
Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 26217 times)