|
Post by EricH on Sept 13, 2023 12:33:32 GMT -5
Essentially, "what is B?". To that I answer, there are many ways one can be lead to conclude that it is the authority of the Church. The easiest being, "Where Peter is, there is the Church". To expand on this, I would argue that the Catholic hierarchy as a body cannot be hidden from the faithful or from the world at large. There may be doubt about individual bishops, or about the pope, or even about a large group of bishops as during the Great Western Schism. But in our times, there was a clear body of Catholic bishops who attended the Second Vatican Council; it was then absolutely certain that they were the Catholic hierarchy because it couldn't possibly be anyone else. Practically all those bishops accepted the major changes to sacramental rites etc., remained in communion with each other and with Paul VI, John Paul II, etc., and thus remained the one visible Catholic hierarchy after Vatican II. The bishops and priests who became independent traditionalists were a tiny minority, and except in Campos Brazil their ministry was in opposition to the body of bishops and to the popes who enjoyed a morally universal acceptance by the bishops and the faithful. All along, there has been only one credible candidate to be the Catholic hierarchy, and it's the "Conciliar" "Novus Ordo" hierarchy. Likewise, only one credible candidate to be that visible society which is the Catholic Church: the mainstream or "Novus Ordo" Church. It occurred to me recently, that unity of belief is not of the essence of a visible society. The USA, Canada, Australia, etc. are visible societies although they don't require their members to assent to a body of doctrine. The common beliefs of Americans, Canadians, etc. have changed a lot over the past 100 years, but as visible societies they have retained their names and identities. A secular society can change its beliefs 180 degrees without losing its identity. For the Catholic Church such a massive change would be a failure, and thus is impossible; but even within the Catholic Church there is room for disagreement. Even on religious matters she allows many points to remain matters of opinion, and she tolerates a certain degree of culpable rebellion against her doctrines without treating it as cause for expulsion. So then, if a visible society can change its doctrines and retain its identity, then one cannot deny that today's mainstream Catholic Church simply IS the same visible society as the Catholic Church in the 1950s, and consequently IS the Catholic Church today. If she has changed her doctrine or law to make them false or evil, then she's now a false and unholy mistress, and one must conclude that the Church defected. If the Church cannot defect, then her changes to doctrine and law must be reconcilable with truth, goodness, and the promise of Jesus Christ to be with His church until the consummation of the world. Attempts at a third option are nonsensical.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 13, 2023 12:52:34 GMT -5
Hello EricH , thank you for your response. I agree with most of what you said, I just feel that some interpretations of the Cassiciacum thesis may be compatible with your arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 13, 2023 14:29:58 GMT -5
The Councilliar Church is not the Visable Church. Any more than the moon is the sun during an eclipse. But on the other hand are people required to know this? Im not sure
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 14, 2023 5:49:32 GMT -5
I've been busy lately, and have been behind on the forum, but have read all of this discussion last night and will have some contributions to it later today.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Sept 14, 2023 10:28:55 GMT -5
Ok, let me engage in this topic then, cause I see it is important to you.
The question is: How can we determine whether the Church that professes a teaching is the Catholic Church? Necessarily, there are only two possibilities:
A) The layman must read the teaching and use his personal judgment to know whether or not that teaching contradicts previous teachings and thus determine whether the authority that professes it is true or not. B) Something different from A.
If you assert A, it is precisely this assertion that I deny. A would be what I call "criteria of credibility", which is a quia demonstration, from the effect to the cause, to determine whether the cause is true. I consider this position to be illicit for the layman because, as I have already explained, if my personal judgment tells me that the Church has contradicted itself but the Church claims the opposite, I should doubt my judgment and not the Church. However, you try to deny this by saying that, and allow me to paraphrase: "I agree, but first you must establish whether it is truly the Catholic Church that is teaching". Essentially meaning that judging the teaching of the Conciliar Magisterium is not judging the Church, but rather a false church. The problem is that you can only justify this in two ways:
1) By begging the question: Simply declaring that the Conciliar Magisterium is a false church; 2) By circular reasoning: Judging the teachings to conclude that the Conciliar Magisterium is a false church, and using this fact to justify your judgment of the teachings.
Both of these are fallacious. There's simply no way around it. Either you can use your personal judgment to conclude the status of the Magisterium based on its teachings, or you can't. And everything leads me to believe that you can't. So you ask now, "what other way could there be to conclude the authority of the Magisterium?". Essentially, "what is B?". To that I answer, there are many ways one can be lead to conclude that it is the authority of the Church. The easiest being, "Where Peter is, there is the Church". How do I know he is the Pope? Two main ways:
1) He was elected by a conclave. 2) He is universally recognized as such.
In order to deny any of these two one must present evidence. In other words, at face value the conciliar church is the Catholic Church. The burden of proof is in the hands of the one trying to claim otherwise. In fact, this is exactly what the sedevacantist position tries to do. I don't know of any sedevacantist who simply declares "the Church hasn't proven to me that it is the Church, so I don't believe it is." That would be crazy. Everyone tries to justify their position with evidence and proof that the conciliar magisterium has lost its authority.
Then you make it impossible for anyone to tell where the true Church is. Before converts become Catholics, they examine the claims of the Church to see whether it was actually founded by Christ. The Catholic Church is not the only Church (or sect, referring to the Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern Schismatics, etc.) to claim to have been founded by Christ, but if it is impossible to judge which of these in fact have authority, then mankind is completely stuck. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which is that true revelation is identifiable. To make what I'm saying clear, I'll demonstrate the distinction below. In judging the teaching of a particular body, one can either: 1) Judge or examine it in order to determine whether this body was actually founded by Christ and whether it is actually owed assent and submission 2) Judge the teaching of a Church which one knows (or at least believes) to be owed assent and submission, but prefer one's own private judgement regardless The first scenario is clearly necessary, but the second is not, in fact it would be wrong. But you must concede that there is a difference, and that the first type of judgement is in fact necessary, otherwise nobody could become a Catholic through rational thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 14, 2023 11:54:08 GMT -5
Thank you all for the great discussion. It seems to me that this entire thread can be distilled down to this:
Q. Are Catholics able to know their Faith? A. Yes
Q. Following that, are Catholics capable of spotting deviations against this Faith, also referred to as heresy or error? Yes. If this is not possible, why were Catholics warned by St. John to identify and shun heretics? How could this be possible if one could not identify a contradiction to the Faith being professed by another?
Clearly, if one could know his Faith well enough to spot that another is not bringing this doctrine, then one must be able to identify that there is a conflict between the Faith on one hand and what is being asserted by the one teaching false teaching.
How were Catholics able to identify heretics throughout Church history prior to the judgment of Rome, and remaining obedient to this teaching of St. John?
If a man comes to your town and says he is a Catholic, but denies that that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and says it's just bread and wine, and nothing happens during the Mass, do you say to yourself, "I am not sure if this man's teaching can be known as a heresy? Isn't it just my subjective judgment interpreting the teaching of the Church and applying it to what this man is saying?" Of course not! A Catholic learns his Faith and has a duty to defend it when challenged. How can a Catholic do this if it's impossible to spot a contradiction against the Faith?
The argument about the legitimacy of the V2 popes does not depend on whether a Catholic can see a conflict between what they teach and the teaching of the Church, as that must be possible. It depends on whether those saying such a conflict exists are correct.
For reference, Haydock's commentary on 2 John 1 v. 10
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 14, 2023 13:09:13 GMT -5
Hello Eric, here is some feedback on your post.
Eric wrote: It's debatable whether they are hidden, I would argue they are in plain sight, and are not to difficult to find once one learns how to correctly identify them.
Eric wrote: Agreed
Eric wrote: Those who publicly taught heretical doctrine would have lost their offices, those who did not would have retained their office. The acceptance of the novel sacramental rites would not in and of itself be proof of heresy, as the legitimacy of Paul VI was accepted. It's not like these bishops adopted Anglican or Lutheran or some other sectarian rite, they adopted rites that at the time were being understood to be approved by the Pope.
Eric wrote: The traditional bishops are not a factor in identifying the successors of the Apostles. As far as the relatively weak Catholic reaction, have you ever considered that it might be part of a specific time in Church history that was prophesied, the Great Apostasy? I am not saying with absolute certainty, but it certainly looks that way, as events in the world are showing a widespread apostasy of even denying the basic truths of creation of man and woman itself!
To your other point, I do not believe there has been any acceptance of the Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis in the manner in which Catholics must accept the Pope. These "Popes" lead a sect with doctrinal and moral chaos, and very few care what they have to say, never mind even considering submitting to them.
Eric wrote: According to you, but you've hardly proven anything, just asserted it. Where we might agree is that the successors of the Apostles will be found mixed in with the sectarian bishops, but where we disagree is that you deny that there are two bodies of bishops, that have not yet been separated from each other by the Church, one that is Catholic, and the other that of the sect.
Eric wrote: Yes, of course.
Eric wrote: This is true, but there are also matters that are not permitted to be an opinion, and other matters, that if one publicly asserts, that act separates him from the unity of the Church. Also, can Popes bind the universal Church to believe something that is a doctrinal error against the Faith or would his office prevent him from doing that? I strongly believe the latter.
Eric wrote: The Catholic Church did not change her teachings or law into anything false or evil. Our argument is clear, that these changes did not come from the Church. You used to understand this, but for whatever reason, you no longer see something you saw so clearly formerly.
Eric wrote: The Church cannot defect. Your solution is to try to bridge the two teachings, pre-Conciliar with post-Conciliar. I see this a lot with people relatively knew to all of this, who didn't live through the old days in the 70's and 80's. We lived through and saw the destruction of this sect, with its novel teachings and their downplaying the Faith in every sense. Entire families that had passed down the Faith generation to generation for hundreds of years, or much longer, many probably going back to the days of the Roman Empire, lost the Faith.
The useless Novus Ordo priests didn't seem to have any problem with this, and continued on giving their ridiculous homilies, and always eager to promote social work styled causes. When parents complained to these priests, that their children were falling away from the Faith, they would uniformly say, "don't worry, they'll come back," but they never did. Sin was never spoken of, the homilies would be full of dumb jokes, and personal stories that never taught anything beyond what might be found in a Golden Book, or Disney movie. There was never any meat, just fluff.
This wasn't unique to my diocese, it was universal, the Faith was gone, and this new sect was pushing their new ideas as hard and as forcefully as they could, destroying all remnants of the old Faith, removing statues, crucifixes, communion rails, murals, etc. I remember priests dressed in shorts and t-shirts, they couldn't even pretend to play the part anymore.
My point is that the practices of this new sect, in what they do, cannot be divorced from what they teach, as the two go hand in hand, and each gives context to each other. When Francis publicly allowed veneration in Rome to the false god, Pachamama, how can that be reconciled with pre-V2 practices? Francis was present and witnessed this event, and he knew full well what was going and this was knowable based on his statement after. The same can be said of John Paul II when he actively participated in a Pagan rite, or publicly venerated the Koran by kissing it. All of this according to some can be ignored, but that is an error. The practices of those claiming to be Catholic, whether it be those claiming to be popes, cardinals, bishops, or priests must be explained. These practices are not some one off event, that could perhaps be explained away somehow, they are regular practices of the sect. The Catholic Church forbade idol worship, but this organization not only practices it, but encourages it. The same can be said of public prayer with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans.
These public practices give context to what is being taught in the many documents, that is often hard to nail down, due to the complexity of the ambiguity being used.
You say that any attempt at a third option is nonsensical, but that is exactly what I am asserting, and I certainly hope that it's not nonsensical. I believe, like you that the Church cannot defect, so that's off the table. I like you, believe the successors of the Apostles are alive in the world today, and that can never cease. I, like you, believed the traditionalist bishops are not successors of the Apostles. Where we differ is on how we identify these successors. You say that it must be the entire hierarchy of what is known as the Conciliar sect. I challenge that, and say that the successors of the Apostles are found in that group, but are not part of that group, as that group, is not truly one group, and just like among the priests and the laity, there are two groups, members of the Church and members of the undeclared sect.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 14, 2023 13:21:07 GMT -5
marcellusfaber , you are mistakenly mixing two different concepts, namely adherence to the Catholic faith and the consequences of that adherence. I explain, but first a clarification: When I use the term " binding", I'm not talking about the universal law that binds all humans, but rather the contingent binding from the personal use of each individual's free will.
The assent to the magisterium, belief in the dogmas of faith, the moral code, political positions, all of this is primarily conditioned by the adherence to the Catholic faith. They are the consequence of that adherence, not its conditions. Once adherence to the Catholic faith is established it necessarily follows all of the consequences, including the impossibility to judge the Magisterium. Now, this is significantly different from the adherence itself. Adherence to the Catholic faith is a free choice to be a member of the mystical body of Christ. This free choice may be conditioned by several justifications or none at all. In other words, there are several reasons for someone to justify their Catholic faith, but the point is that none of these reasons are the essence of this adherence, they are all accidental. The essence is the act of the free will itself, nothing else. It so happens that one of the possible justifications is the use of credibility, not for the assent to the Magisterium, but to the adherence itself. The assent to the Magisterium comes automatically as a consequence of that adherence. But like I said, this justification is only accidental. One can, and actually most do, have any other justification to adhere to the Catholic faith, but in the end all are bound to the consequences of that adherence equally. Notice also how, prior to adhere to the Catholic faith, one is not bound to do anything (please see my claryfication above). One can theoretically judge the Pope, his personal actions, the Catholic morals, agree or disagree politically, anything of this sort, to justify his adherence. But obviously, none of those things are permissable to the Catholic once his adherence is established.
Pacelli , I agree with everything you said, except when the supposed deviation comes from the Magisterium itself. Of course each one of us can spot deviations from the true faith, but what happens when both sides claim that the other has deviated? Worse, what happens when authority itself, responsible for guarding the faith, splits against itself, and its parts accuse each other, each certain that it defends the true faith? How to solve this? You know how to solve this, because we have the ultimate authority whose purpose is to silence any dissent. "When Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent". There were not few in the Church who believed that Christ having two natures was a dissent from the faith, and in fact the result of this schism is present today in the Oriental churches. There were not few in the Church who believed that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son was a dissent from the faith, and in fact this schism is seen to this day in the Orthodox. There were not few who believed that Vatican I was a break from tradition, and so the Old Catholics were born. But in each and every time the true faith was preserved, because Peter spoke. Well, as far as I can tell, Peter is speaking now. So I must be silent.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 14, 2023 14:32:02 GMT -5
alyosha wrote: Thank you Alyosha, Based on your answer above, there really isn't any disagreement between us on principles as far as I can see. The magisterium of the Popes is infallibly safe, and we must trust what is being taught and submit to it. St. Peter's successors cannot bind us to believe heresy, any serious doctrinal error, or errors against morality. As far as I can see, you and I agree on all of that, as we must. The dividing point is this, that I hold that the magisterial teaching of Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, are not the magisterium of Popes, but in fact are that of undeclared antipopes. Due to this, when one looks at this teaching, post V2, I am noticing clear conflicts with Catholic teaching, and this is possible to happen, as one group of these teachings is from the Church, those from the Popes, and the other is not, that which was taught by the undeclared antipopes. If I believed the man, Francis, were the Pope, I like you would be silent, but if this man is St. Peter's successor he would not have taught me a new doctrine that conflicts with the Catholic teaching. Is there any doubt that a new doctrine on many matters has emerged from these men that conflicts with the papal teaching of the past?
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 14, 2023 14:56:58 GMT -5
Thank you Pacelli. I agree, we almost have no disagreement. Our divergence of position has its origin in a subtle difference in foundational belief, namely the possibility to conclude the lack of authority of the Magisterium from its teachings. You affirm it, I deny it. If I were to affirm it, I would have your position, unquestionably.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Sept 14, 2023 18:20:17 GMT -5
Thank you Pacelli . I agree, we almost have no disagreement. Our divergence of position has its origin in a subtle difference in foundational belief, namely the possibility to conclude the lack of authority of the Magisterium from its teachings. You affirm it, I deny it. If I were to affirm it, I would have your position, unquestionably. God is the spirit of Truth and guides his Church through the supreme Pontiff, ensuring that she cannot teach errors in Faith and Morals to her flock. The supernatural infallibility that his office is endowed with ensures a solid foundation for the Church and that guarantees that she will always be an ark of salvation for all those attached to her. Because God is the spirit of truth, he doesn't contradict himself and when it comes to matters of Faith, neither does his Church. All authority comes from God, so when an apparent authority begins to teach explicitly contrary to the what has been taught as de fide in the past then it is legitimate to ask whether there is a real contradiction, or just an apparent contradiction. When it is a real contradiction then one must ask whether the authority contradicting the spirit of the Church, the Holy Ghost is actually a real authority, or just an apparent one. This is the root of the problem that we are facing.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 15, 2023 6:50:14 GMT -5
Thank you Pacelli . I agree, we almost have no disagreement. Our divergence of position has its origin in a subtle difference in foundational belief, namely the possibility to conclude the lack of authority of the Magisterium from its teachings. You affirm it, I deny it. If I were to affirm it, I would have your position, unquestionably. alyosha , On the matter of Faith we agree, it is just in my opinion that you have not yet connected all the dots so to speak. None of us who hold this position, that Paul VI and his successors are undeclared antipopes, wanted to adopt it, in my opinion. This hard truth was forced upon us, but once we see it, can we then stick our head in the sand and ignore it? I first came into contact with this position in the mid-1990's, when I lived in Canada and went to the SSPX. Another man that attended the chapel held the position, and I used to talk with him after mass about that and other matters. I couldn't refute his reasoning, and I was astonished when I looked into what John Paul II had done at Assisi. Anyway, sedevacantism, to me, at the time, seemed far too extreme a solution, and the biggest block to me was if this is true, then where are hierarchy that God promised His Church until the end? Over time, in my opinion, it becomes more clear once one reflects on the schism that Paul VI began and we see that his new sect pulling away from the Church, therefore pulling away from Catholics, and beginning a new religion, with new doctrines and rites. The fact that it was a man that was considered to be Pope doing this caused more confusion, and it is for this reason that Catholics and sectarians continued to worship together, as the existence of this new sect was not detected by the Shepherds of the Church, the bishops, along with the most of the clergy and laity, who either joined it, or at least failed to either identify it or if they had suspicions, failed to follow up and do anything about it. Anyway, fast forward to 2023, what I am getting at is this, Paul VI is long dead, so we must now look at Francis, the man claiming to be Pope. Is it not clear that he is the leader of a schism that is pulling away from the Church? Is he confirming the Faith of Catholics? Is he teaching the Faith or is he endlessly introducing novel doctrine much of which is clearly at odds with the constant teaching of the Church? Did he, literally right before his eyes, not only tolerate, but actively encourage and even personally actively participate in a pagan worship ritual right in Rome for the entire world to see? I can remember in the old days when John Paul II did similar things that Catholics would either deny it happened, saying that it must be photoshopped, or if they admitted it was true, may say that he was tricked by those around him, or maybe didn't know what he was doing. I understand the fear that comes from accepting these hard truths of what is really going on, but for those wanting the truth, we have no choice but to accept what we are seeing. In the case of Francis, his own words in his public statement right after the man threw one of the idols in the River demonstrated his full knowledge and by that his guilt, eliminating any potential innocent explanation. See his statement HERE
In my opinion, we are very far beyond debates over the texts of Vatican II, and whether the ambiguous statements can be construed as orthodox, heretical, or erroneous. John Paul accelerated things, and removed the sect's mask much more than Paul VI did, with Assisi in 1986, his public act of venerating the Koran by kissing it in 1999, see HERE, his active participation in a Pagan rite in Mexico in 2002, see HERE, along with many other acts demonstrating his apostasy, which someone collected in this short video, see HERE. Benedict XVI also was hardly innocent, but compared to John Paul II, had slowed things down slightly, but with Francis, things are back to full speed, and we are seeing again that participation in paganism is an acceptable practice in this sect, as even the "Pope" is doing it, and very publicly for the entire world to see. The photos of Francis at the Pachamama worship rite clearly show him participating and overseeing the ritual, see HERE More recently in 2022, in his visit to Canada, Francis also actively participated in another Pagan rite, and as usual, there was no hiding it, and is was done publicly, see HERE
Can it not be more clear that these men do not profess the Catholic Faith? This new religion that began with Paul VI, has continued to make itself more and more clearly known. Their practices cannot be separated from their words, they must be looked at together, each giving context to what they mean and what they are teaching. Even saying that, the words of Francis are getting far less ambiguous than his predecessors, as he is more clearly and explicitly deviating from the Faith. There really is no more reason to continue to mask their teachings with ambiguity any longer, as they, in their mind, control the "church," as there is really no more significant opposition left. Since things are now so explicit, even many of the conservative theologians and intellectuals that recognize Francis have recently and publicly accused Francis of heresy, see HERE. It's worth it to take your time, reflect and pray about all of this. It's not an easy truth to accept, but these truths of what this sect and its "popes" are saying and doing are all verifiable public acts and cannot be explained or defended according to any standard used by the Church.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 15, 2023 10:00:19 GMT -5
Pacelli,
Let me say that I am willing to grant all your claims. In fact, for the purpose of making this conversation as clear as possible, take my position to be: I firmly believe that the Conciliar Church teaches heresy. As I said, if I had the same foundational belief as you, we would be in the same position. To be honest I would probably be a sedeprivationist, but that's besides the point.
The problem is, and this is the disagreement I have with all sedevacantists, that my personal belief has absolutely no value in declaring any status of the Conciliar Church. If the Church authoritatively and solemnly denies that it is in contradiction with tradition, then I am wrong. No matter how clear the contradiction seems to me, I am a layman without any authority, who needs to be guided by the words of those who hold the truth. Stating otherwise would place me in the same group as Coptics, Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc. They have the same legitimacy to declare the see vacant as I do. That's what I believe. I have tried my best in this forum to make this issue as clear as possible, because this crucial difference does not seem to be noticed by those who hold the sedevacantist position. Proof of this is the countless times I have had to clarify and elucidate this issue, and yet the misunderstanding continues.
I would like friends here to truly understand this inevitable truth of the position they defend. Either you can judge the Magisterium based on its teachings or you cannot. There is no fixing, no alternative, nothing. If you are a sedevacantist, you claim that you can. This is inevitable. Maybe you really can, and that would justify your position. I respect that, and believe me I understand it completely. But all my limited knowledge of the Catholic faith leads me to believe that this is illicit. Therefore, I cannot follow you.
Edit: That is of course, on the basis of the first justification I’ve presented in my first post on this thread. This leads me back to the purpose of this thread. The second justification seems to be more plausible. That’s why I’m asking if there is any binding teaching of the conciliar Church, whose practical effect leads do disobedience of the Traditional Magisterium. If such a teaching exists, then maybe I have found a justification for your position.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 15, 2023 17:57:49 GMT -5
alyosha , As I said, think, pray and reflect on this. It may take time to digest what has been presented, but I urge you to look through each and every link I gave in my last post. I will devote my time to posting more, so you may see more evidence if you wish. I can assure you that there are no similarities between the Old Catholics and the Coptics with our present dilemma. The Old Catholics could not accept Papal Infallibility, and they were wrong. In our case, we reject the false teachings that began at Vatican II and were developed by the "popes" that followed. Do you think it is ok to treat false religions, the so called Orthodox, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and even Paganism as legitimate ways to lawfully approach God? Clearly, that is one of the core beliefs of these "popes" as demonstrated by their words and actions. In my opinion, this sect is continuing to expose itself, and is certainly not done yet, so if you don't want to answer, I can leave it at that. At some point, it will expose itself in new ways, not previously seen, and I am sure it is coming. If the public worship and veneration of an idol in Rome itself isn't enough to sway you, just wait and watch. When you have seen enough to see that this group led by Francis isn't the Catholic Church, feel free to post and we can then discuss how this may be possible. Until then let's be at peace, as I know you love the Catholic Faith and so do I, and the truth will make itself clear.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 15, 2023 19:04:27 GMT -5
Of course Pacelli, I am expressing my position in the most peaceful way possible. I do not want to condemn, judge, or attack the sedevacantist position. I completely understand and respect the desire to resolve the current crisis. Believe me, I entirely share this desire, although I do not agree with the solution. In fact, I think this is precisely what motivates me to continue incessantly searching for a justification for your position. It would be a terrible conclusion, but at least I would have peace of mind.
|
|