RSiscoe:
People who hold to the strict interpretation of EENS are not called sedevacantist. Sedevacatists are those who think John Paul II is a heretic and therefore is not the Pope. These are two completely different matters. It is true that some Sedevacantists hold to the strict interpretation of EENS, but holding to that strict interpretation does not make a person a sedavacantist.
I have two questions for you:
1.) What would you say if Rome issued a document (and I am 99% sure they did) stating that, since the more liberal interpretation of EENC is allowed, they must also allow the more strict interpretation: viz, that only actual members of the Church can be saved. What would you say if Rome ALLOWED Catholics to hold the strict interpretation of “outside the Church there is no salvation”? Would you still consider those Catholics “sedevacantists”?
2.) Do you believe the following Ex-Cathedra dogma of the Faith that all Catholic are bound to believe under pain of damnation.
"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam, 1302, fourth Lateran Counsil).
Do you believe that a person must be “subject to the Roman Pontiff” to be saved, as the Holy Ghost said, through the Church? If so, please explain what this means; and how a Protestant can refuse to submit to the Pope and still be saved.
Try to answer those two questions reasonably, without losing your temper and calling people names.
Oh dear, another one that can’t read properly. I must insist you and others don’t state that I have said things I have not.
It is true that some Sedevacantists hold to the strict interpretation of EENS, but holding to that strict interpretation does not make a person a sedavacantist.
I never said it did, in my experience of the internet and personally it is a trait of these people. Please find where I explicitly said strict EENS = sedevacantist, as I have asked debtera before.
Q1 - You raise a new issue. I have continually posted about Church teaching. Whether you may or may not hold a more ‘strict’ position is another question. The Holy father has asked we use the Catechism
Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and
the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to
use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be
a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to
support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
If it is valid to hold a ‘strict’ EENS position then fine. But don’t try to present it as Church teaching. (See above) Finally as I have already stated, you think I have said strict EENS = sedevacantists, which I have not…
Q2. What is and what is not an ex cathedra statement / exercise of infallibility / ordinary magesterium is another contencious issue. As a Catholic, I listen to the Pope and the Bishops and what they teach, which is concisely and accurately contained in the Catechism, based on Holy Scripture & Tradition.
Try to answer those two questions reasonably, without losing your temper and calling people names.
Please show me an example of an unreasonable answer I have made.
Again, please show where I have called anyone names.
I have not lost my temper, so I don’t have a clue what you are on about
