Where is the line?

[SaintSebastian]

Francis, Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked".

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel.

Ex Quo, Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV
Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel

Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
Jn 8:42-45
1 Cor 7:19
2 Cor 3:11-15
Gal 3:26-29
Gal 3:16
Heb 10:9
Heb 8:6-13

To be fair, those all deal with the Mosaic Law or Mosaic Covenant, while EG is dealing with the Abrahamic.  You need to make an argument about the Abrahamic covenant being revoked (personally, I haven't seen one made).

[JohnTherese]

It's out of the question for me to even think about crossing the line. Put it out of your mind.

"For every Pius V we get, we also get an Alexander VI."

[PrairieMom]

It's out of the question for me to even think about crossing the line. Put it out of your mind.

"For every Pius V we get, we also get an Alexander VI."

I think it's less about crossing the line, and more about when a line gets crossed.

[JohnTherese]

Okay.

If I say "at this point I will become a sedevacantist" am I not already in error?

They don't posthumously excommunicate Popes and throw them into the Tiber anymore, but there have been bad Popes before that have done bad things and allowed errors to be spread.  Why would we pray for them otherwise? Are we praying for Francis?

Thank God for the conditions and limits of Papal Infallibility, and for the indefectability of His Church!

[Oldavid]

Okay.

If I say "at this point I will become a sedevacantist" am I not already in error?

They don't posthumously excommunicate Popes and throw them into the Tiber anymore, but there have been bad Popes before that have done bad things and allowed errors to be spread.  Why would we pray for them otherwise? Are we praying for Francis?

Thank God for the conditions and limits of Papal Infallibility, and for the indefectability of His Church!

Heh heh! There haven't been any popes posthumously chucked into the Tiber for a good while. My guess is that the next lot will be posthumously chucked into the Rhine.

Anyhow, while I may timorously hold that opinion I have no authority to decree it.

Thank God for the conditions and limits of Papal Infallibility, and for the indefectability of His Church! Excellent! I might add that that does not guarantee the indefectibility of any pope or popes... regardless of whatever any particular brand of papalaters may proclaim.

[Confiteor Deo]

At times, I am tempted to go to the SSPX or even to become a Sedevacantist considering the current state of the Church, but I remind myself that Our Lord has promised to never allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church and that the Holy Ghost prevents her from falling into doctrinal/moral error, even if He does allow abuses and immoral clergy to be in the Church as a punishment for our sins. So I would never leave the Church to join the traditionalist groups such as SSPX or Sedevacantist since I would be the one falling into error and losing my soul.

[VoxClamantis]

Francis, Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked".

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel.

Ex Quo, Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV
Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel

Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ.

But it wasn't revoked; it was fulfilled. Granted, the language used nowadays to talk about the Old Covenant is misleading, but it's accurate strictly speaking. I think it's misleading on purpose (in order to placate Jews), but still, it's accurate.

That's the way things go with some aspects of Vatican II's documents. One has to have studied and to really know the Faith to read some parts of them with the eyes of Tradition, but it can be done. The Holy Ghost preserved things. But they're typically not read in light of Tradition, which is easy to do given how they are easily misunderstood and twisted (again, I believe, on purpose).

[PrairieMom]

Okay.

If I say "at this point I will become a sedevacantist" am I not already in error?

They don't posthumously excommunicate Popes and throw them into the Tiber anymore, but there have been bad Popes before that have done bad things and allowed errors to be spread.  Why would we pray for them otherwise? Are we praying for Francis?

Thank God for the conditions and limits of Papal Infallibility, and for the indefectability of His Church!

Perhaps I should restate what the intention of my original question was, because now I'm even more confused than ever.

When there are bad Popes that have done bad things
allowed errors to be spread
is possibly a heretic
starts to dismantle the foundational teachings of the Church

What? What does that mean?

Knowing that, in the past, excommunicating Popes was an option so clearly the seat was vacant at some times even when "occupied", how does one deal with the cognitive dissonance that is created when you have a situation like what the Church finds herself in now? I get the whole "the gates of Hell shall not prevail", but the Church is not the Pope. So to say that the "right" side of the line is the side the Pope is on, historically, isn't accurate. There have been moments of history where that hasn't been the case. But it only in history that the truth has prevailed.

I pray for our Pope daily at the suggestion of my priest, but I admit I struggle with it. I am afraid of him, and I am afraid of what road we're heading down. I'm trying to understand what's going on, in a world where the sed argument looks increasingly attractive.

[austenbosten]

Francis, Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked".

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel.

Ex Quo, Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV
Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel

Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ.

But it wasn't revoked; it was fulfilled. Granted, the language used nowadays to talk about the Old Covenant is misleading, but it's accurate strictly speaking. I think it's misleading on purpose (in order to placate Jews), but still, it's accurate.

That's the way things go with some aspects of Vatican II's documents. One has to have studied and to really know the Faith to read some parts of them with the eyes of Tradition, but it can be done. The Holy Ghost preserved things. But they're typically not read in light of Tradition, which is easy to do given how they are easily misunderstood and twisted (again, I believe, on purpose).

And isn't that a sin to deliberately talk out of both sides of your mouth and mislead others?

[Oldavid]

And isn't that a sin to deliberately talk out of both sides of your mouth and mislead others?

I have lots of disagreements with Mother Vox' opinions but if I'm going to criticise them I'd try to say what and why.