Do your homework dear, a sedevacantist says there’s no valid pope. I never claimed that, I never implied that. Research sedevantism and papal infallibility. One thing I hope you learn about popes is that they can make mistakes. To say otherwise incurs the anathema from Vatican I.
An excellent question which I’ve wondered myself: Why are dead Popes more authoritative…?" The modern Popes have, to a degree, adopted a modern mentality. The previous Popes condemned certain behavior and explained how the results would be negative. The modern Popes ignored the warnings, and the predicted results are now apparent. Where do we draw the line for deviation from tradition? “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” Why? Because you’ll break it. That simple. John Paul II did/wrote/said a lot of good, but he did cause scandal in some areas. He’s not perfect, nobody is. He can make mistakes, we all do. He never retracted public acts of scandal, which is something to keep in mind, as Saints admit when they’re wrong. He never infallibly taught against faith/morals. His view of ecumenism/religiousl liberty was thwarted though, likely due to WWII. Understandable, but not completely without consequence.
Mocking the traditions of the Church isn’t wise.
I’m not saying this in a smarting-off tone:
Better than questioning the authority to church, which you have done. You have told us to be on the safe side we should ignore anything the Popes have said since 1965. That my friend is breathtaking arrogance. Can you give us your theological background? Why we should listen to some anonymous poster on the Internet on such important issues as the teachings of the Church.? Do you think you’re qualified to dismiss the teachings of 4 Popes? Iif so how are you any different than Martin Luther? Why dont you admit you are a Sedevancist?Mocking the traditions of the Church isn’t wise.
I question being encouraged to sin. I don’t care who encourages it, I don’t obey. I question a man going against the traditions of the Church and warnings of the popes because he was traumatized by WWII. If no significant changes have occurred in the Church, what’s wrong with writings before 1965? Your accusations about what I’m saying have no ground as I didn’t make this up. My information is gathered from the writings of the Church councils, previous popes, canonized and not, Saints in general, priests and bishops, IN UNION WITH ROME, and others. Martin Luther left the Church. I disagree with the pope and that does not make me a sedevacantist. You, however, are proving yourself to be an idolater by turning John Paul II, God rest his soul, into your golden calf.
So you are a Sedevancist. If you say you can’t trust thePopes after 1965 you have ceased to be in communion with the Catholic Church-just like Martin Luther did…
Thank you for the correction, “Sedevacante”. It was getting distracting.
Enough with your sedevacantist accusation. My Smart-Mouthed Idolater, I never said you one couldn’t trust the Popes after Vatican II. You’re putting words into my mouth which is lying, which is also a sin.
Oh good grief! I’m outa here.You said not to trust anything the Popes have said since 1965 how are we to ~ake that you call me an idolator for merely expessing admiration of John Paul II what are we to make of that?
You question a lot of things and yet without a stated purpose or intent. Let’s see, if the Pope smokes a joint, should I smoke a joint too? Should I follow his teachings?
I mean, really, what exactly are you saying? Please make a statement of fact rather than leading questions which don’t really apply. If you’ve got the Pope red handed telling you to sin then spill it. Don’t suggest it without actually saying what you mean. So, in short? Where has the Pope told you to sin and how does this allow you to disobey him?