This!!!
The side that has the Pope is the side that will have me & Christ.
What if it is an anti-pope?
Then one must be careful to discern. When I was learning about the great western schism I had no trouble figuring out which was the real pope, because I knew the cardinals had no authority to dismiss the Pope. How that discernment would work in real life would depend on the circumstances, so I cannot speculate now beyond saying that it must be done in prayer and with reason.
If the Pope declares something of the Faith that goes against tradition of his predecessors, then you can bet your money. It’ll be a dark time indeed, if that ever happens. You have to keep with Scripture and Tradition, as understood by the Magisterium.
This is a BIG misconception. The liturgy in the, so-called, old form (which was more then a 1000 years old) was not introduced by Vatican II, but by a liturgical reform, that came in the wake of it. Vatican II never said throw Latin out, never said communion in the hand, in fact the bishops and the Pope we’re very clear in keeping the 1000 year old tradition, that was universally accepted, on the tongue and kneeling. Read the documents of the Council. Many of the things that were spread about Vatican II are not true. Most of the changes came, mostly, of misinterpretation of the Council documents. The Novus Ordo was the product of liturgical experimentation, which took place in the 70’s.
I would likely join with the “side” (This will never happen) which the majority of Cardinals, bishops, and clergy follow. I assume this would be the Pope elected in the Sistine Chapel.
Picture yourself in the Vth century, Council of Nicea…by your logic you would be following a heresy, because at that time, most of the bishops and priests we’re following arianism. Heck, even the Pope was inclined to believe it. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, almost all by himself, defeated the stupid notion that Mary wasn’t mother of God.
I don’t think this is fair at all. Much has been written over the past 40+ years by those with the credentials (both academic and spiritual) to address the issue of the loss of the Sense of the Sacred and how it has gravely affected the contemporary Church.
Interesting article, I hope he’s right.This is not my find…I stole it!
!!It’s interesting to note that the 1962 Missal was said each day before the council met. If they had intended to throw that missal out, why would they have had it said at all?
Because it was the current rite and there were no other authoritative liturgical texts to draw a liturgy from.
It would never happen except for all those times it already has.
Whether or not it is likely, God forbid, to happen in our lifetimes, the fact is that it has happened before and will probably happen again at some point. History is rife with antipopes of various popularity. There was even one which is a saint! (He repented of course)This whole discussion over parallel Churches is downright silly.
Honestly, that would be a better indicator than majority vote, but your suggestion is as absurd as it is insulting.
Writing in the Week, Michael Brendan Doherty forecasts that the synod will become an exercise in hypocrisy: “My prediction is that the synod will issue a document strenuously claiming to affirm the indissolubility of marriage, while instituting a practice that contradicts it.”
Is what I fear.