No, but you may be depending on WHY you pick something. That's the problem with R&R as articulated above; it undermines and destroys Catholic doctrine/dogma about the papacy, to the point that one could not condemn the Old Catholics or Eastern Orthodox or even Prots. If the papacy is capable of going corrupt in faith and morals, to the point of justifying and even requiring the separation of communion with it, then how can we say it didn't go corrupt already during the time of the Prots or the Old Catholics? So if that's what you mean by R&R, yes, you're rejecting Catholic doctrine.
If you have some other rationale for why you think Bergogio et al. might be popes (at least materially) that doesn't destroy the papacy, then it's just a question of theory. So, for instannce, Father Chazal considers himself R&R but he articulates a position that does not destroy the Catholic papacy and the Catholic Church ... though I'm not sure I would consider him R&R in that sense of the term.
I agree, and this is precisely the most absurd part of the R&R.
Where do you draw the line? If you openly oppose the Pope, then how can you condemn others who do the same? How can you be so sure that the errors that you oppose are really errors?
The main defense for this accusation, from the R&R "authorities" is that the Conciliar Popes have not used their teaching authority for real. They are using a kind of "dialogue mode" Papacy, on which they merely propose ideas, and don't really teach.
It does sound weak, but at least they have an explanation for their position which differs them from the Old Catholics, Orthodox, etc...
Fr. Chazal's position seems closer to the Cassiciacuм Thesis to me, although I have not studied it thoroughly.
Topic: BREAKING: Archbishop Viganò Summoned to Vatican Tribunal on Charge of Schism (Read 28581 times)