Anyone here reject Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh i agree, but theres one thing to label someone wrongly, or vaguely, in the example you gave. “Traditional” catholicism is a very broad label, i agree; however, sede vacantist is not as broad. And in the case i was using it because he was saying he wasnt a sede, but in reality, he is.
 
sonofbarry said:
I reject the sanitized, sugar-coated teachings of the church, most of which largely originated with VII – especially the platitudes and ignorance that infest Catholic schools.
Click to expand...
If you do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, that would be expected. Personally, I reject the Book of Mormon.
 
The poster believes the seat is still occupied, so I do not see that term applying. Suffice it to say it is problematic enough to say one accepts Pope Benedict as pope while rejecting one of his most pivotal statements (his resignation), not to mention the College of Cardinals. That is sure a huge slice of the Catholic Church one has to reject.
 
That second article is rather challenging. Pope Benedict calls to question the deficiency of the laity second-guessing the Church. The majority of what we get is filtered through someone. We do not meet face to face with the Pope, with the various church leaders and have only the insight we get through the filters. As much as we think of this as the information age, we have to also acknowledge it is the mis-information age.
 
pnewton said:
The poster believes the seat is still occupied, so I do not see that term applying. Suffice it to say it is problematic enough to say one accepts Pope Benedict as pope while rejecting one of his most pivotal statements (his resignation), not to mention the College of Cardinals. That is sure a huge slice of the Catholic Church one has to reject.
Click to expand...
The poster you have referred to, Casilda, may have intended to say that the living Pope Emeritus was far more effective than Pope Francis, even though Pope Francis was validly elected. Benedict retains the title “Pope” though with “emeritus” qualifier, so I can see why Casilda referred to him as pope. I have read Casilda’s posts on other threads, I don’t think he or she has taken a sede position.

A true sedevacantist might point out a papal election was flawed, based on evidence of ballot tampering, threats or bribery in the conclave, etc. In this case no one has proved that. The fact that Pope Emeritus retired well into his 80s(!) rules out that he was forced from office by other than age.

Personally I was defending Pope Francis for 4 years on the internet, and in personal conversations, telling people who criticized him to “give him a chance, let’s see where he’s going with this…”

I have not joined the critics, but I have stopped defending him.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The poster you have referred to, Casilda, may have intended to say that the living Pope Emeritus was far more effective than Pope Francis, even though Pope Francis was validly elected.
Click to expand...
She specifically called Pope Francis “a usurper.” I don’t think you call someone validly elected a usurper.
 
You are right, that is not the correct term. He was validly elected.
I was wondering if her use of “usurper” was perhaps an expression of frustration.
 
Last edited:
Very true. Good information has to be double-checked. Secondary sources are just that, secondary. The problem is the internet is the perfect outlet for con-men and liars. The veil of secret names and zero identities means the military couldn’t have a better propaganda and counter-intelligence platform. So, I have to rely on print sources with real names, accountability and cheackable information. The higher the perceived “convenience” of the internet by the public results in a higher level of corrupted (name removed by moderator)uts. Just like the news media in general, which has become more superficial compared to the past. If I want “real” information, and I’ve done research for years, the internet - at best - is 50/50.
 
Are parishes assigned or do you choose where you attend? I knew a large number of Mormons in a past state I lived and they were “encouraged” to attend specific locations for their services
 
Last edited:
I cannot reconcile how someone who rejects Vatican II can consider themselves “real Catholics” and shortly after criticize more progressive Catholics as “Cafeteria Catholics”. To my understanding “Cafeteria Catholicism” is picking and choosing what works for them. Vatican II is part of Church History. It’s part of the Church’s story - -just like Council of Trent, Reformation, etc. To reject this, is no different from “picking and choosing” .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top