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.
Below I am talking about faithful Catholics who've been in this crisis for a while, not neoconverts who have yet to learn their faith, purge their errors and live the faith.
Yes, a BOD and perhaps a few other points of doctrine can be disputed and is a cause for arguments and strife between Catholics, and among Catholics there are many sources of disunity since V2. One of the reasons that disunity is brought about is by having different interpretations on teachings and doctrines of the Church aka a BOD, another reason for disunity is when anything new is introduced.
When you bring in sedeism and R&R, you are pointing out one source of disunity among the faithful. Although the idea of sedeism is not necessarily new, as the Church has always considered the idea to be schismatic, what this means is by it's very nature sedeism is divisive - which is why the Church has always considered the idea schismatic.
It is because of this idea of sedeism, which some few trad priests introduced after V2, that the sedes split from original trad groups and established their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses and so on. So to deny it's divisive nature is to misunderstand the only purpose it actually serves.
As we all know, we are to obey God first, which means since V2 we can neither obey the pope in his errors, nor accept the heretical teachings of V2, nor attend their sacrilegious Mass without offending God, whatever the status of the popes are in this is irrelevant.
This is the course of action that was taken for years by the faithful in the late 60s before they found out in the early 70s that it was the pope who perpetrated this crisis, his status did not matter then, when they maintained the faith without knowing "who done it", nor for us does his status matter now. Which is to say there is no reason whatsoever for sedeism today anymore than there was a reason for it back then. Back then, the new religion was the source of disunity, these days we have that plus sedeism.
Topic: Working together in the Traditional Catholic movement (Read 3138 times)