co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Friday, July 3, 2026
"It would be a category error to call the SSPX Protestant."
SSPX EXCOMMUNICATIONS: Still Not Protestant!
Ready to Harvest | 2 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BThpQ9U7gIE
"It would be a category error to call the SSPX Protestant."
Thank you. Me too.
Swedes have sometimes a hard time to grasp this. In 1993, after switching to SSPX, former fellow Novus Ordo Catholics branded me a Protestant.
That absolutely didn't mean I'd have been at home with Protestants.
Currently I'm Conclavist. After Lefebvre and Castro-Mayer, two bishops consecrated before the Council, consecrated Fellay and Galareta with two more, one ex-Seminarian of them concluded that "emergency bending of rules" is only licit if one does so the necessary extent to actually finish the emergency.
And to David Allen Bawden, that meant, means still, I suppose, get a real Pope one can in good conscience obey.
6 persons showed up for an emergency election ("emergency conclave" is a misnomer since it wasn't an actual conclave in the usual procedure), 5 against himself voted for him.
So, more or less SSPX-er about half of my life and the last 12 years a Conclavist, no, I'm not a Protestant.
7:36 Pope Michael I, his successor Michael II, have an answer.
Pope-sifting is in practise denying the universal and direct jurisdiction of the Pope.
I would say it is licit momentarily to oppose a Pope, while not yet considering him a non-Pope, if one finds him in doctrinal error. This happened against Pope John XXII, who had denied the Beatific Vision prior to the Last Judgement, ie he was proposing Soul Sleep. He was then opposed by one, didn't repeat that position, promised to study, did study and on his death bed came out against Soul Sleep and for Saints who are canonised having the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision from the moment they die (except one saint who asked to spend time in Purgatory, just for solidarity).
That's a far cry from opposing the same Pope time after time on the same issue and continuing that with the next Pope. John XXII made a mistake. One cannot say he chose error. John Paul II cannot be said to have made a mistake in CCC § 283, if he continued to uphold that "Catechism" unaltered to his death and Benedict XVI and Francis did so. If they were Popes, I'm wrong. If I'm right, they were not Popes. Resisting can't become pope-sifting.
8:04 Dito Council-Sifting.
There have been 20 ecumenical Councils.
8:17 New Catechism ... "infected with modernist errors" ... in CCC § 283, more like directly professing one, that modern science trumps the obvious sense of the text in Genesis 1 through 11. Especially as it is now on more issues than how much time passed before Adam was created.
Pose Adam in the timeline, and admit he's the first human with a soul created in God's image, you have dehumanised loads of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals, even inhabitants of Çatal Höyyük, as well as implied most of today's peoples started as non-human and got human admixture, at best.
Admit he's the first human, but reframe the timeline, like WLC, you have made Genesis 3 impossible to know historically, you can't even mend that by saying it was prophecy, since prophecy couldn't have got Genesis 5 and 11 wrong, and you have made the waiting time for the woman and her seed unendurably long.
Pose him in the timeline, pretend he's the first ... sth other than actual first human ... and you have redefined original sin.
Pose Adam in the timeline, admit he's the first human, and admit all human skeleta dated to before him are misdated, you have contradicted § 283 and being Day Ager or Gap Theorist won't fix that.
10:55 Origen was, as far as I know, not excommunicated.
Origenism was condemned by a bishops' vote in Ecumenical council V. Origen was already dead and couldn't be excommunicated. As I recall Newman, there is some doubt whether the Pope confirmed the bishops' vote or just condemned the Three Chapters of Ibas. Nevertheless, Origenism would still be condemned by the constant acceptance in the ordinary magisterium after Ecumenical council V, that being ... Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment