CathInfo.com

Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.

I sense a false ecuмenism in this thread. We can only have true unity by submitting docilely to the See of Peter.

In the meantime, a humble and charitable but uncompromising approach should be taken by all.

That is to say, both sedevacantism and R&R should not be considered heretical in themselves and all their followers non-Catholic, however, if one persistently denies a truth of faith in his position he must be denounced for it according to our consciences.

As Ladislaus keeps pointing out, those who show contempt for the See of Peter by constantly insulting and ridiculing the man they consider Pope and by caring not one bit whatever he says, to the point it seems if Bergoglio titled his next encyclical "Christ is not God", they would say encyclicals are worth nothing and only the extraordinary magisterium is infallible and carry on.

Such a position is obviously blasphemous to the spotless bride of Christ and heretical. It unfortunately seems to me that is what most R&Rs position amounts to, but fortunately most seem not to take their position to this logical conclusion but still retain some respect for the papacy.

As I'm sporadically looking into BoD more and more I find it the most difficult theological issue I've ever faced and I honestly can't bring myself to blame anyone on either side. However, those who are quick to shout heretic on either side are sorely mistaken in my opinion as the issue is legitimately confusing.

With regard to all the other stupid discussions such as dogmatic una cuм, Thuc validity, no jurisdicton, it is very obvious what is the correct position and I can't help but feel there is only bad will on the side of those denying sacraments to faithful because of these three positions.


In conclusion... what is the conclusion? Nothing new. The question is more of a nice idea than a plan of action. Should we take a vote on which positions are hereafter acceptable in order to foster unity? Saying, why doesn't everyone just get along is very nice but ultimately meaningless.

If you want unity, I've outlined above what I think are acceptable positions which would make things better but ultimately true unity can only be brought by a true pope.

Mark my words, I am not defending his positions in toto, nor do I adhere to his movement, but how is Richard Ibranyi a "notorious manifest heretic"?

This may have to be an "explain it to me like I'm five" scenario, and heaven knows I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through RJMI's massive, and I do mean massive, corpus of writings, but where is the heresy?  I am thinking it could possibly be his Jansenist-like tendencies, but his extreme rejections of the various papacies going back centuries puts him into a "painting himself into a corner" scenario of careening back to before 1054 (if he's not already there) and becoming, for all practical purposes, a variation on the theme of "Western Rite Orthodox".  He admits the concept of the papacy (I guess...) but says that we may not have had valid popes for almost a millennium.  (I don't know who he would say the last "valid Pope" was, but I know he goes way back, and even rejects Aquinas and Scholasticism.) 

He makes the Dimonds look like Modernists by comparison.

He openly calls post 1130 Catholic councils and dogmas heretical.