CathInfo.com

Quote from: Caminus

This is interesting.  You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope?  TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events.  The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated.  Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.  

Perhaps you should re-read my post.  I have, in no way, justified my current opinion on anything on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future.  Further, I have answered, or have had answered, the "serious difficulties" my opinions imply to the point that I believe they are the only answers that make sense given the situation as it is rather than as many wish it to be.  As for my "concerns" about the SSPX, I only say that I don't know what their response would be if such an event occurred.

I also find it interesting that you are so bold as to declare the cardinal's theological position heretical even though he remains--and will remain--a cardinal in good standing with the conciliar church.  He will never be made to recant this opinion in the same public manner in which he made the opinion known.  The cardinal's opinion on this matter is not isolated.  It is a very wide-spread opinion in conciliar environs.  It may not happen in the near term, but I do believe you will likely see it in your lifetime.

It only makes "sense" if you restrict it to the question of the Pope alone.  But in reality, the same standard that you apply to the Pope (though you have cited no specific heresy by which he casts himself out of the Church) would also apply a fortiori to all Cardinals, Bishops and priests of the conciliar Church.  I have never seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question during all my years involved in this controversy.  

What you have failed to grasp is that if the entire hierarchy has vanished into heresy, you would present to us an essential change within the Church itself; its divine constitution would be substantially altered.  Indeed, the Pope and the Bishops form the principle part of the Church.  If the entire body has defected, ordinary jurisdiction, i.e. the Church's divine authority would cease to exist.  You implicitly admit that this has not happened in reality since no serious body of Catholics has dared to elect a new Pope.  If the Church existed only amongst traditional Catholics, one would expect that this same Church would be able to elect Popes and appoint Bishops.  The Church cannot by definition become impotent in preserving itself.    

What you have stumbled accross is an easy but false solution to a real problem.  You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation.  Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.

Regarding my boldness in asserting that such an opinion regarding women priests is heretical, I respond by saying that it is one thing to identify an objectively heretical proposition, i.e. a false opinion contrary to faith, and quite another to judge a man's status within the Church.  

I have repeatedly requested for any Sedevacntist to demonstrate their thesis, but none has been forthcoming.  I find this strange considering the certitude with which certain men make these declarations.   If you do take the time to actually attempt to prove your thesis and also demonstrate how it does not involve heretical implications regarding the divine constitution of the Church while simultaneously forcing Catholics to presume upon obtaining miraculous knowledge in the future, I will not entertain any further discussion on the matter.        

The Pope must be Catholic.  Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.

Here's my most scientific answer: Duh.

 

You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation.

There are only two choices.  Either the Pope is a Catholic or he is not the Pope.

Or there's a third or fourth choice.  And then there the choice as to whether one has the audacity to make a definitive judgment regarding the membership of another man.  

That there is no clear authority established to elect a new Pope does not destroy the Church.  What destroys the Faith is following non-Catholics.

Ambiguous, tentative, minimizing language.  The fact is that there would be no authority at all.  And this does in fact destroy the Church.  Your last is a truism that a three year old could utter and merely begs the question.

 

Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.

It does not destroy the Church.  It is an egregious, flagrant error to say things such as "the Church has cancer."  Which is what the people who defend modernist clerics are saying.  Si Si No No said Cardinal Ratzinger had "no faith."  If that's not being a manifest heretic, what is?  To claim that someone manifestly has no Faith is to deny that they are members of the Church.

I see no substantial difference between saying that and what Pius X said affirming that there are enemies within the Church.  What else would enemies do but harm and destroy the Church, causing great affliction and confusion, sowing seeds of doubt?  You are confounding the divine and human element of the Church just as the Donatists of old did in Augustine's time.  Regarding your citing Si Si No No as an authority, one could easily assert that such and such a man is faithless without commenting on his status in the Church.  The term has a wide application as any reading of history would reveal.  And being "faithless" doesn't amount to being a "manifest heretic."  Such elementary blunders.  

There are only two choices.  There is no "middle way"

Supposing I understand what you're driving at, this is an invention of your own mind; a false dichotomy that settles well with superficial and rash minds.  Indeed, being a most faithful Novus Ordo Catholic would make much more sense than being a "sedevacantist".  If you wonder why, see my Chicken or Egg thread.  

Beyond this, until you answer my challenge, I will speak no more on this topic.