Sacred Scripture tells us that it is in being corrected that one is given the opportunity to either acquit himself of suspicion, or condemn himself as a heretic.
So, has Francis been corrected, or has this yet to take place?
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Excellent summary of the objective reality of a pertinaciously notorious heretical Pope that must be avoided. How do we avoid him?
Was Paul VI “corrected” by Cdl Ottaviani and Abp Lefebrve?
Plain. Love the speed you speak. Not to slow and not too fast. Engaging. Truth! Cuts nicely through the butter (no resistance because there is nothing that can come against truth) being slathered all over Catholic minds everywhere, serving them up nicely to the father of lies to devour them and regurgitate them into the fires of hell.
Correction:
Excellent summary of the objective reality of a pertinaciously notorious heretical Pope who must be avoided. How do we avoid him?
Tom, after having followed you on AKA Catholic for quite some time I have a question regarding Sedevacantism: Does the movement have a validly consecrated bishop with apostolic succession? If not, how do the priests of the movement (sorry, I do not what else to call it) expect to carry on once they all die off with no bishop to ordain more priests? I am just curious. Any answer you can provide will help me greatly! God bless!
So Francis is a heretic. Popes, TRUE popes, can indeed fall into heresy despite all the huffing and puffing and scandal of sedevacantists.
It’s not complicated, so let’s not make it complicated.
Avoid in that case. Keep the faith, resist the world, the flesh and the big bad guy below, and live the life of grace.
It’s not complicated, so let’s not make it complicated. He didn’t make it complicated, after all, so why should we?
They carry on the same way that the SSPX carries on. There are Sede Bishops who have valid ordinations through various lines. These independent Bishops use the same justification for jurisdiction that Abp Lefebrve used when he defied JP2 and ordained four priest to the episcopal rank. Before leaving the NO sect, I carefully studied the ordination issue. Most agree that even though illicit in the eyes of the NO sect, these ordinations are still valid. There are a few who claim that these “illicit” ordinations are not valid due to lack of authority. I would wager, if you were to study the issue with an open mind, you would see that it is the NO ordinations that are highly doubtful and not the SSPX or sede ordinations. I avoid as much as possible stepping foot inside a church now occupied by the NO sect. I just have no idea if the Blessed Sacrament is there or if its just bread. So vague and ambigious were the changes to the Episcopal Rite of Ordination, that I fear its the NO priesthood that has died out.
Sorry, I failed to answer your first question. Yes, there are sede bishops who can claim apostolic succession. Off the top of my head there is Bp Sanborn, Bp Privanus, Bp Dolan, and Bp Kelly. I believe Bp Sanborn has just ordained another Bishop or he is about to. I cant recall. Unfortunately there are some sedes who doubt the Bishops consecrated in the Thuc line. There is much written about this issue that I am sure you could find with a few internet searches. The sede world is not pretty or tidy. Frankly its a mess as one should expect when there is no one in charge. But then again thats the whole issue that the sedes argue. Theres no one in charge. But its still a better situation then believing that a heretical peronist sodomite loving apostate is Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Yes, Christ gave authority to some pretty shaddy characters in the past, but never has Christ turned His Church over to a non-Catholic. This is the point sedes base to draw the conclusion that the See is vacant.
Im afraid trying to hold two contradictory opinions at once makes for complications. A non Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. I will grant the Bergolio is the head of the NO sect, but he cannot by reason be head of a Church he is not a member thereof.
Tom, the bigger issue is the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, but I suspect you know this already. By the way, you are a big reason why I wanted to join this blog. I would have told you privately, but I don’t think that is an option here.
Fantastic video, Louie.
Clearly explained, spoken and presented. Thank you!
Well said!
Excellent question!
He DOES seem to be everywhere!
When there is a bad Pope, and there have been a few, the seat of St Peter is never vacant – never! St Peter occupies it and is supported by good, faithful Prelates on earth until such time as the rot is removed and a worthy Pope is elected.
Bp Sanborn will be consecrating Fr Joseph Selway a Bishop sometime in the spring of 2018.
You need to be able to differentiate between a “bad Pope” and a person who is not Catholic. Mr Bergoglio does not fall under the heading of “bad Pope”.
The seat is vacant every time a Pope dies. It has been vacant 100’s of times since our Lord made His Church.
Rich, we all know that the See can be vacant. As you said, its been vacant 100s of times. Sometimes for several years. I have no clue why so many people think it cant be vacant for 50-60 years. No where is it written that there is some sort of timetable that the vacancy cannot exceed.
Thank you 2vermont. But Louie deserves the greater credit for not being one of those blogs that does not delete comments or bans contributors.
Who do you think you are? You are a Catholic layman… and you have no idea how liberal and how Protestant you sound… YOU decide if the pope has been corrected… YOU decide if he is a heretic… wow… that is so Catholic and so Traditional. The Louie Magisterium…paid for by the Church of Louie Pay pal. Have some humility…
Yes in my humble opinion.
Yes , at one point during the severe persecution of the church the See was vacant for several years.
Yes , at one point during the severe persecution of the early church the See was vacant for several years.
For 1400 years Catholics never would have believed that the Great Western Schism could have happened…but it did.
Even though I am not a Sedevacantist, it is puzzling why those who criticize Tom A and other Sedevacantists on this site are so smugly certain that Pope Francis is not a true pope––while at the same time, declaring his four, openly heretical, post-conciliar predecessors to be legitimate popes.Those earlier popes all warmly embraced the same heretical teachings of Vatican II that Francis accepts, so do they not also fall into the same heretical pot of stew that Francis wallows in today? Unless one sees “gradations” of heresies and rank the false teachings of Amoris Laetitia far above the false teachings of Vatican II, is not the reasoning of the Sedevacantists at least consistent in their declaration that all of them are heretical non-popes?
Of course, the answer advanced on this site to counter that reasoning is that only Francis has been deemed (by certain Catholics) to be a “formal” heretic. They claim that he falls into this category because he was “corrected” many times (as Louie pointed out in his vid), and pertinaciously refused to refute or recant the heretical teaching that he advanced in Amoris Laetitia.
That argument is certainly compelling at some theologically technical level, but even assuming that is the case, are we to then presume that if Francis were to recant the teachings he apparently supports with respect to Communion for the divorced-remarried (admittedly unlikely) would he then be deemed to no longer be a “formal” heretic and, a fortiori, a true pope? Does this entire argument not turn on the individual Catholic’s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia in light of Catholic teaching? What about the heretical teachings of Vatican II that have literally decimated the Church and led so many Catholics to perdition? Are they not at least as serious and were not those earlier post-conciliar popes pertinaciously heretical after they were “corrected” for their heresies (e.g.the Ottaviani Intervention)?
Each can speak for themselves, but even before Amoris Laetitia emerged, Louie has been saying that the true pope is actually Benedict XVI. For certain, Benedict’s abdication of the Papal Seat was a bizarre act of defiance of the Church on the part of the Modernist leaders in Rome, but is that not simply Louie’s opinion? As for Amoris Laetitia, it’s not that the heresy in that document is unimportant, but many prominent (traditional) Catholic theologians have not been so willing to go out on a limb and declare Pope Francis not the pope based upon their interpretation of this writing. Are their opinions all just wrong? Are they all simply not as well-informed as so many of those on this site? Protestants, as we know, feel quite comfortable in figuring things out for themselves, and at the end of the day, the “truth” is what they conclude after interpreting the Scriptures as they believe they should be read. Are those who are declaring the pope to be a non-pope simply engaging in their own version of Protestantism?
The Society of Saint Pius X appears to acknowledge that much of what the current pope and his post-conciliar predecessors have taught and are teaching is heretical. Nevertheless, they also acknowledge that as evil as all of these men actually may have been, they were still legitimate popes––including Francis. The Society teaches that we are to pray for Pope Francis, follow what he says in all that is consistent with true Catholic teaching and reject all else–advice that seems to fall on deaf ears of many traditional Catholics today. But while that advice is not nearly as dramatic as declaring the pope to be an anti-pope, it is difficult to argue that it is not at least a consistent belief, and it is certainly far more “Catholic” than it is “Protestant”.
I actually think most of those that have been criticizing Tom A etal still believe Francis is a true pope.
Irishpol–In other words, every time Pope Francis opens his mouth, we must decide if what he is saying is consistent with Catholic teaching. That statement proves that he can not be trusted to be “Catholic” all the time. Let us not forget that we are speaking of the person who is supposed to be the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Weird advice coming from the SSPX. Is that how you fight an heretical pope? Agree when he is right (has he ever been?) and ignore him when he’s wrong? Imagine if our Generals fought wars like that. Heaven help us!
My2cents;
Thank you for responding to my post, but you should know that I believe that correct Catholic behavior would apply my reasoning to all popes––not just Pope Francis. Nevertheless, if I understand your response correctly, you are suggesting that Catholics, after appropriate research, should make an assessment as to whether or not the pope is legitimate––perhaps as you have done. And if they conclude he is not legitimate, they must reject that pope as an anti-pope and disavow all that he has to say.
On the other hand if they conclude that he is a legitimate pope, then you appear to be suggesting that they must accept all of his spiritual guidance as being consistent with the Catholic faith. Perhaps we simply have a different understanding of our Catholic faith, but my understanding has never been that we are required to accept every spiritual teaching that every pope might have to say as being the truth. Now maybe I have misinterpreted you on that point, and if so, please correct my misunderstanding.
But assuming I do understand you correctly, my answer is yes; every time a pope “opens his mouth” on some spiritual issue, we have an obligation to determine if such a pronouncement is consistent with Catholic teaching. And, if we conclude that the teaching is not “Catholic”, we must reject it; but on the other hand, we also have the obligation to submit to every “legitimate” teaching where such submission is due––even when the pope is not speaking ex cathedra. Importantly, however, we are not to do so blindly, as we also have the obligation to learn our faith by studying what earlier popes and Councils have spoken to on the issues at hand.
So I don’t accept your idea of “fighting” a heretical pope. I believe we should pray for him and submit to every legitimate exercise of his authority.
But apparently where we clearly part company is on the central issue as to whether we, as individual Catholics, may decide if Pope Francis is an anti-pope or not. My understanding of our faith is that individual Catholics, such as any one of us, lack the competence to determine for ourselves that any given occupant of the See of Peter is not the pope. You, Louie, and others on this site, quite obviously, believe otherwise.
2Vermont;
You may well be correct on that point. I probably should have said “a number of critics”. Quite frankly, I haven’t been charting where various posters stand on these issues, so I respectfully accept your correction as being more accurate. Still, my central point still stands, which was that Sedevacantists are consistent in rejecting all post-conciliar popes, while non-Sedevacants are often not.
Irish, you state that individual Catholics lack the competence to say whether a man is pope or not, but in the same post you state that an individual Catholic has the competence to decide if his teaching is heretical or not. This is the problem I had in my brief time in the RR camp. I was able to declare a papal teaching heretical, but I wasnt able to declare the man who taught it as a heretic. The sede camp states that if I am going to make a personal judgment about a papal teaching, then I might as well make one about the office holder too. All us trads need to face this fact. We have made a personal judgment on the v2 NO sect. If we didn’t, we would be faithful Novus Ordoites. Because in the Catholic world we assent to papal teaching and never question the Pope. It seems RRers are in essence cowards who want to disobey but still claim the “in union with” mantle. You are afraid modernists will label you outside the Church. Haven’t you been paying attention to them. No one goes to hell anymore so there is no need to be in their church. As a sede, I am in union with the Catholic Faith alone. There’s no sense being in union with a heretic. If the Pope was a Catholic, I would be in union with him. Have the gates of hell prevailed? It sure looks like they have but we have Christ’s promise that they won’t. I have faith that Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. We are in the darkest of days. Pray your Rosaries and stick to Tradition. PS-avoid all things V2 and NO.
Irish, you also state your understanding is that you do not have to accept everything a Pope says as true. Well that may be true for off the cuff remarks, it is not true for official papal teachings. Yes there are differing levels of assent for different categories of magesterium and topics. But I have never seen it written any other way other than assent. Surely, the documents of V2 (if from a true council) would qualify as magesterial and requiring a certain level of assent. Bergolio has said his AL interpretation is now magesterial. That means in english, “No more discussion. Case closed. Assent.” There are many different sources and explanations as to the levels of assent to be given to the different teachings, but no where is it written that the laity “may reject.” It has bever been taught nor a part of our faith. All this resist talk started so the SSPX could justify their disobedience.
Irishpol—Trying to discern whether or not Francis’ statements are truly Catholic is a tall order for most Catholics who have received poor cathechesis for more than 50 years. No one, even a Pope, can add or detract from the Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles by Our Lord. Therefore, his job description is to safeguard, protect, promote and defend the teachings of the True Catholic Church. Whenever Francis speaks and upholds the Deposit of Faith, he is not teaching anything new and,therefore, Catholics already believe what has been said. When he speaks falsely with the authority of the papacy , he puts countless souls into jeopardy. To ignore this behavior encourages him to continue to misuse his office regardless of its legitimacy. Does Francis need our prayers. Of course, he does. Not only for his sake, but for the sake of the entire Catholic world. Whether Francis is a real pope or a fake pope, the harm he does is the same and cannot be over emphasized. Apparently, you do not believe in “fighting” an heretical pope. Just let him “do his thing” and hope for the best. Let’s see where that gets us. While we may not agree on this, I do appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Tom A;
Thank you for you thoughts on this issue, but I must respectfully disagree with you on this point. Catholics do have an absolute duty to resist pronouncements of the pope that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching––whether he makes such remarks in a formal setting or merely “off the cuff”. The exception to that teaching, of course, is when he speaks ex cathedra. As complex as the teachings of the Catholic Church actually are, Catholics have a duty to learn the truth and resist all false teachings, even if brought to us by “an angel from heaven”.
As for the Vatican II documents, the Novus Ordo Mass that followed, or any number of other false teachings that have followed since Vatican II, we have not only no duty to assent to those false teachings, we must reject them––notwithstanding what Pope Francis or other theologians have said about those teachings. Similarly, despite what Pope Francis and other theologians have said about Amoris Laetitia, Catholics should understand that the teaching is heretical, so it is there duty to resist it––regardless of what the pope says.
Much has been written on this topic over the centuries, but I’ll take a quick look for a cite or two that supports this teaching and include them at the end of this note. Nevertheless, I would respectfully suggest that you research that question for yourself.
Now you be no fan of Steve Skojec (1P5), but a Google search popped up this one first. He’s easy to read and he makes that point toward the end of his document. https://tinyurl.com/ydfdhlae
I’m also including another cite I ran across called “The Wild Voice”. I confess that I’m not familiar with them at all, but they claim not to be associated with anybody––for what that’s worth. But also agree with what I’ve said, but include a fait amount of citations to support that teaching.
https://tinyurl.com/y73zbtob
I have not analyzed either one of this documents, but both appear to support what I have said is Catholic teaching.
Sedevacantists bishops claim their jurisdiction to distribute the sacraments comes from the principle of epicheia, which is the favorable interpretation of the will of the lawmaker in the absence of the lawmaker.
The SSPX can not claim epicheia because they do not acknowledge the absence of the lawmaker. They accept Bergoglio and his Vatican II predecessors as true and valid popes and therefore, their lawmaker is not absent.
Irish, I will agree that Bergolio needs to be resisted. And the best weapon to resist him is to deny his legitimacy and authority. To make him impotent to further sully the Catholic name. I will check those citations you provided.
Irish, that last link to Wild Voice was chock full of errors that I have no idea where to begin. Yes, those may be actual quotes, but he has mutilated the context and his “notes” are laden with error. He pulls his ideas straight from the protestant arguments for a defectible church. Leo did not confirm the council in calling Honorius a heretic. Liberius did not fall into heresy. So many errors, all of which have their origin in the enemies of the Church. This guy could get a job writing Chik pamphlets.
Also Irish, steve skojec of 1p5 has also bought into the Honorius/John XXII heretical pope line taught by protestants. I find it strange in this line of argument that includes these “heretical” popes, that St Peter is lumped in there too with “popes who must be resisted.” Those who must justify disobedience will stretch whatever truth they can to justify themselves. St Paul rebuked St Peter for setting a bad example, not for teaching heresy. St Paul did not resist a Papal teaching on faith or morals. If Bergolio were Pope, it would perfectly ok to rebuke him for his dangerous stance on muslim immigration. One could have rebuked Pius XII on being too soft on modernists. The last people who resisted a valid Pope were the Old Catholics over Vatican I. Now look at them. That is what happens to those who resist true Popes. Also, your citations are mostly theologians who have been arguing issues for centuries. Find papal teachings and official cathecisms that say we laity have a duty to resist.
Tom A:
As I noted when I sent them to you, they’re not my citations. You said you had never read that teaching before so I generously gave you a few cites that supported it. You now are attacking the links as being inconsistent with your beliefs. Okay, don’t believe them.
The links provided were simply the first two references that came up when I Googled the question. There were hundreds (maybe thousands ) more that would probably say the same thing. Of course we’re all certainly free to believe what we want about Catholic teaching, but I would think you may have a difficult time finding many Catholic sources that support the belief you’ve expressed on this topic.
The problem I have with this whole RR argument is that it says that I can decide what is an heretical teaching but I can’t decide who taught the heresy is a heretic. Common sense dictates that someone who is always saying heretical things must be a heretic and treated as such. Bergolio certainly fits that description.
“Of course we’re all certainly free to believe what we want about Catholic teaching, but I would think you may have a difficult time finding many Catholic sources that support the belief you’ve expressed on this topic.”
(1) We are free to believe what we want about Catholic teaching?
(2) Wrt not finding “Catholic” sources to support Tom’s beliefs, who determines what is a “Catholic” source? How are you determining what is “Catholic”?
I understand your point, but even if a pope teaches what we believe to be heresy, it does not necessarily mean he is a pertinacious heretic. He might well be, but his beliefs could also be formed out of ignorance, and if the truth is effectively brought to his attention he may very well withdraw his heretical teaching. I realize, of course, that this appears very unlikely. I also realize that Pope Francis is a very bad pope.
Yet the more important issue for all of us is to realize that judging as to whether a pope’s teaching is heretical is much different and far less consequential than judging whether or not a pope is actually a true pope. For one to follow the heretical teachings of a pope may well lead to eternal damnation; whereas rejecting a true teaching of a pope (while laboring under an honest but misguided belief that it is heretical), might not even be sinful.
On the other hand, when one exercises their independent, but arguably well-formed, judgment to reach a determination that a pope is not truly the pope, they are almost certainly empowering themselves with unwarranted and unjustified knowledge and authority that is reserved for the Church alone. As Louie and others have indicated during discussions of this issue, the process for determining that a pope is an anti-pope is far from straightforward and obvious. Indeed, even suggesting that it is convoluted and arcane would be an understatement.
But I do understand the reasoning and the rationale that Louie and others have employed to reach their conclusions that faithful Catholics can use well-formed reasoning to reach a determination that Pope Francis is a formal heretic and therefore and anti-pope. I simply disagree. Moreover, it’s very possible that even promoting such a belief skirts dangerously close to scandal––at least as I see it.
2Vermont
I agree that my comment was poorly worded. I was probably being just unnecessarily flippant. Catholics are not free to believe what they wish about Catholic teaching. I stand corrected.
Of course my reference to Catholic sources were papal encyclicals, dogmatic Council teachings and the like. But I agree again, sometimes short-handing our thinking causes confusion. Your objections are well taken.
Irish, I am sorry, but you continue to prove my point. You yourself correctly say we laity have no authority to state who is the proper Pope, but you continue to allocate that authority to yourself when it comes to his heretical teachings. Just like it is not our place to declare anyone a heretic with authority, it is not our place to authoritatively declare a Church teaching as heretical. You simply cannot have it both ways. Sedes cannot with any authority proclaim the see vacant. All we can do is act as if it were vacant based on our observation that the Church cannot teach error. So we either accept V2 and the NO mass with obedience, believing that it was duly authoritzed by competent authority or we deduce that the instutution that issued these errors cannot be the Catholic Church. The RR position seems to me to do great harm to the Church because it teaches that the Church can teach error and its the duty of the laity to teach those who have authority from Christ to teach us. How are the faithful suppose to know when the Church is teaching error? I hope you see this point. There are many things that I can’t explain as to how the See can be vacant for so long. But none of those issues contradicts the Catholic faith. But a Church that teaches error? That flies in the face of 1900 years of Church teaching.
Ive come to the conclusion that modt R&R types don’t know the Dogma of the Papacy ormthey do not understand it, The infallible teaching of Vatican I makes the idea of a “heretical pope” utterly impossible, much less an oversight body of professionak interpreters of the magisterium who not only dissent on one aspect of papal teaching, but reject entire catalogues of it. Not only in one instance, but year after year, decade after decade. This is a position which cannot stand. One will eventually reject the doctrine of the Papacy or tbe Church if it keeps up.
Responding to your criticism of my comment is difficult inasmuch as you seem to read what you want to into these posts. There is no suggestion in my comment that a heretic can be a pope. The issue under discussion was who has the authority to judge whether certain pronouncements on the part of a sitting pope are heretical or not. Hopefully you didn’t need to refer to Vatican I to determine that if the pronouncement of one claiming to be pope is heretical, then he is not a pope.
Nevertheless, as to the actual issue under discussion which you obviously missed, you have apparently adopted the position that if Semper Fidelis in all your wisdom deems a pronouncement to be heretical, then by gosh, it must be heretical. And if you are not aware, by the way, assuming that you have the authority and the theological background to make such a determination is far more than a mere failure in humility, it is a failure to properly understand Catholic teaching. Serious Catholic research might help.
And to be perfectly clear, while you may well be competent to determine if a pronouncement is heresy, you do not have the competency to determine if the pope is a formal heretic and thereby, not the pope.
Irish, the issue isnt really about authority or competence of the individual. Its about common sense. If year after year and decade after decade I hear what I believe is heresy coming from what I think is the Church, at some point I must wake up and make a decision. I can by my will force my intellect to accept what I think is heresy to remain in union with whom I believe is Pope. Or I can reject the authority of those who are promulgating what I believe is heresy. Both are logical conclusions. What is not logical, because it accepts a Church that can teach error, is to reject the teaching without rejecting the teacher. It is not a matter of authority. Its a matter of prudence. If you keep teaching me what I think is heresy, well I’m simply not going to pay anymore attention to you. Divine Law dictates this course of action. The conciliar church has had decades to correct itself. The situation and their blasphemies only get worse. They simply are not going to return to Tradition. They are fully committed to the Cult of Man. I can tell by what you say Irishpol that you are NOT in union with Bergolio. You may say you are, but your beliefs and words say you are not. So when you find yourself NOT in union with someone you think you must be union with, you have two options, change what you believe to be in union with him, or realize that he is not the one you must be in union with. Your decision as an RRer is that you think Bergolio needs to be in union with you.
Abp Lefebrve basically admitted my last point when he said the SSPX will wait until Rome returns to Tradition, then recognition would resume with ease. I am sure I misquoted but that was basically the point he made and the policy of the SSPX until recently. Recently they seem to be pursuing a recognition without Rome returning to Tradition. Either way the SSPX is waiting for Rome to be in union with the SSPX. Its suppose the be the other way around.
My eyes are wide open …
2010 was my conversion to the complete TRUTH …
Turning away from the NO new mass …and all the novelties and Vatican II …thanks be to God !
Thanks Tom ….
I appreciate and agree with everything you have just stated
Tom A––
There is no reason for anyone to believe that The SSPX is seeking recognition from Rome under the current Modernist regime. The recent SSPX publication (https://tinyurl.com/y7cb6cwn) sets this out in a fairly straightforward fashion. Of course if one is looking for reasons to reject the SSPX (confirmation bias), I’m sure they can read what they want into this or anything else. When Louie covered this publication a few weeks back he demonstrated this quite well.
But on the issue itself, I genuinely believe that virtually everyone on this site, from Louie on down, is seeking the truth. If there are exceptions to that premise then they have escaped me. All, I believe, are sincere Catholics who are honestly sharing what each believes to be the true teachings of the one and only true Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.
Quite obviously, many on here believe they have found that way and are more than anxious to share it with the rest of us. I would seriously doubt that very many believe they are confused and are seeking the truth from other commenters. Most are quite certain their beliefs are correct. But common sense and logic tells us that not all of our different versions of the truth can be correct, as there is only one truth. And speaking for myself, I do not consider my views to be an exception to that philosophy.
The I was a young man I served as an Altar boy in the early 1940’s. I was blessed with a much different Church than we have today. My sainted parents assured me that a priest, any priest, would always provide me with the right Catholic answers to any spiritual or moral questions. But all that changed after Vatican II. It didn’t disappear all at once, of course, but it’s gone today and, with few exceptions, we live in a spiritual wasteland. We answer our own spiritual and moral questions by turning to the internet to find papal encyclicals or other authorities we respect.
So I’m not surprised when you say that “common sense” compels you to reach the conclusions you have reached. Although I do not support your Sedevacantist beliefs, as I’ve said a number of times in my earlier comments, those beliefs are far more consistent than many of the beliefs of various non-Sedevacantists. Indeed, if I believed that the answer on that issue was simply one of determining whether a pope (any pope) embraced what I believed was a heretical proposition, then I would be a Sedevacantist, as without question, all since Pope Pius XII embraced the heresies if Vatican II.
But I do not accept the notion that it is common sense that should dictate our beliefs––nor do I believe you do either. Nevertheless, most of us feel we have no other choice, and that our only recourse to determine the truth is to search it out for ourselves––using whatever reason our reason and logic (common sense?) we can each muster up to find that truth. That is understandable, but it also should not be surprising that many of us come up with some very different versions of what we believe the truth to be and how we should proceed through life to achieve salvation.
So while I’m not faulting or criticizing you or anyone else that is concerned about this diabolic disorientation in which we all now find ourselves immersed, for myself I have taken refuge in a few basic Catholic beliefs I was taught as a child. First, that the the Catholic Church is the only true religion; second, that His Church will persist until the end of time; third, that where Peter is, there is the Church; and fourth, that the dogmatic truths of the Church will never change.
Thus, in spite of the fact that the SSPX has been banished by Modernist leaders of the Church today, after carefully considered all of their teachings that the SSPX publicly professes, I have come to the conclusion that they are the only priestly organization that attempts to follow all of those teachings––despite the fact that some of them are very difficult to follow––to wit, acknowledging that the current pope ( as well as his recent predecessors) are or were all valid popes, notwithstanding their embracing of many heretical teachings––Amoris Laetitia just being the last. The SSPX does not claim to be the Church, they only insist that they are trying to follow her true teachings until the Modernists are banished from Rome. The Chapels they have set up are nothing more ports in a very dangerous storm. I have no reason at this time to doubt what they say.
So, Tom A, as far as I’m concerned you’re a good man despite the fact that we disagree on Sedevacantism. And while I don’t believe that such a philosophy is a sound Catholic approach to this terrible crisis, it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong. Merry Christmas if we don’t exchange further thoughts before then. My wife and I are heading back north (we’re Floridians these days) to visit the children and grandchildren, so I may not have much time on the internet.
SSPX is still silent on the latest from Francis:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/all
“….third, that where Peter is, there is the Church”….
Indeed. Can anyone honestly say, without a shred of doubt: “Where Francis is, there is the Church”?
Have a blessed Christmas with your family, Irish. It is very refreshing having a discussion on this controversial topic with someone like you who sticks with the issues.
I agree …irishpol is a breath of fresh air.