How Do Catholics View Protestants

[Virgil the Roman]

Personally, am I a Sedevacantist? I am not quite sure to be honest. I am not certain. There have been a myriad of scandals, errors, that have flowed forth from the Curia and the various Catholic bishops conferences; the various "teachings" of "Vatican II that seem to contradict, negate, and abolish two millennia of prior Catholic teaching; in addition to a plethora of dubious deeds and words of the last several occupants of the Papal throne to make one such as myself to seriously question:

"What the heck is going on here?"​

I would say that I am not a sede. And I really wish and want Benedict XVI to be a true pope. However, I seriously have times where I scratch my head and wonder . . .

 

[Luther073082]

Personally, am I a Sedevacantist? I am not quite sure to be honest. I am not certain. There have been a myriad of scandals, errors, that have flowed forth from the Curia and the various Catholic bishops conferences; the various "teachings" of "Vatican II that seem to contradict, negate, and abolish two millennia of prior Catholic teaching; in addition to a plethora of dubious deeds and words of the last several occupants of the Papal throne to make one such as myself to seriously question:

"What the heck is going on here?"
​

I would say that I am not a sede. And I really wish and want Benedict XVI to be a true pope. However, I seriously have times where I scratch my head and wonder . . .

So its your opinion that there is room for confusion as to where the one true church lies?

 

[Dark_Lite]

If you're scratching you're head and wondering if Benedict is a true pope, then you're scratching your head and thinking about embracing sedevacantism.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

If you're scratching you're head and wondering if Benedict is a true pope, then you're scratching your head and thinking about embracing sedevacantism.

Indeed; that would seem to be the case. I am not sure. fisheaters.com/cumexapostolatusofficio.html

 

[Virgil the Roman]

So its your opinion that there is room for confusion as to where the one true church lies?

Well, it is the Catholic Church and her teachings; that I know is certain and is for certain.

 

[someguy14]

I also disagree with the "branch theory" because it basically indicates that God does not care about the individual teachings of the church so long as it teaches something about Jesus.

God most certainly does care that you are part of a church that teaches the complete fullness of God's truth. However God does make the best of heterodox teaching churchs to save souls.

My friend, I am on your part also.

For even Peter agrees that Jesus is the head. Jesus is our salavation. Peter mentions first, that Christians are the Church. Chistian is a follower of Christ. Christ leads us to The Father God. Peter and all the disciples lead us to Christ and Christ leads us to The Father. And many are lead by Love. God is Love. So to be called a Christian is above any other form of interpretation and does away with any other title and Catholics above other religions should be aware of this, since Peter, in whom Catholics desire to follow, shares this in 1 Peter 4:16.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Indeed; that would seem to be the case. I am not sure.

Sedevacantism is heretical. My favorite part about sedevacantism though is the guys they elect pope. The one in Kansas, the one in Washington... It's lol.

fisheaters.com/cumexapostolatusofficio.html

What is the relevance of this?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Christ is head of the Catholic Church. The Pope is his viceregent; he administers God's Church on earth. Protestantism does not make sense. It is a mass of conflicting doctrines. And yet all of it is held to be salvific, save only by fundamentalist protestants . . .

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Sedevacantism is heretical.

That's funny. It embraces no error; purports no heresy.

The See of Rome, where it or not there is an antipope, is not heresy. We've had many antipopes in the past occupying the papal throne. We even had the Great Western Schism. Even history attests that 'extraordinary' occurances of this great a magnitude have the potentiality for happening. I've not read a refutation yet that could disprove this. There have been Catholic priests even in the 20s and 30s that have said that a long-term vacancy of the holy see of a true occupant is not impossible or could not happen.

 

[WarriorAngel]

If one leaves the Chair of the Pope - one left the Church and it would seem the sin in it is, pride?

As i said in another thread, trust.

Jesus said to the Saint 'Tell them to say 'Jesus, I trust in You.'' and to mean it.

Jesus said no heresy would thrive in His Church, which in the same speech He ceremoniously handed the keys to Peter.

IF someone could show me where He ever prophesied that the Church He was setting up on Peter would fail, i would love to see it.
In fact no such thing can ever exist since His exchange to Peter was quite solemn.

Peter was a sinner - but that didnt matter. Nothing any sinner can do can change His precepts. Period.

And if i should believe otherwise then i dont really trust Jesus...i believe.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That's funny. It embraces no error; purports no heresy.

The See of Rome, where it or not there is an antipope, is not heresy. We've had many antipopes in the past occupying the papal throne. We even had the Great Western Schism. Even history attests that 'extraordinary' occurances of this great a magnitude have the potentiality for happening. I've not read a refutation yet that could disprove this. There have been Catholic priests even in the 20s and 30s that have said that a long-term vacancy of the holy see of a true occupant is not impossible or could not happen.

Disputing in the faithfulness of the Lord to His word and promise and the Holy Spirit's constant guardianship is beyond heresy...

It borders blasphemy. But thats just me.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

How can one "leave" the chair if an antipope occupies it? How can one prove that such a view is heresy? It does not the authority nor the perpetuity of the line of St Peter' successors; rather it asserts that the current occupant is illegitimate due a self-deprivation of the See by heresy. Such a view is consistent and potential, given Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Consitution, "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio".

 

[Dark_Lite]

That's funny. It embraces no error; purports no heresy.

The See of Rome, where it or not there is an antipope, is not heresy. We've had many antipopes in the past occupying the papal throne. We even had the Great Western Schism. Even history attests that 'extraordinary' occurances of this great a magnitude have the potentiality for happening. I've not read a refutation yet that could disprove this. There have been Catholic priests even in the 20s and 30s that have said that a long-term vacancy of the holy see of a true occupant is not impossible or could not happen.

Looks like you're doing more than just considering sedevacantism.

Sedevacantism is the heretical (yes, heretical) position that the Holy Spirit somehow abandons the visible institution of the Catholic Church on a massive level that the institution itself is demolished... until it gets set back up by some guys in the middle of Nowhere, Kansas. Sedevacantists assert that they are the one true Church. Of course, there are different sedevacantist groups. So there's several one true Churches each with their own pope. And the Holy Spirit is for some reason allowing the much more visible Evil Usurper Church(TM) (aka the actual Catholic Church) to continue occupying Rome, promuglate doctrine, and trick everyone into thinking they're the real Catholics.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

No one said that the Lord isn't faithful. However, was it "unfaithfulness" on our Blessed Lord's part to permit the Great Western Schism and allow half the Church to follow an antipope, believing he to be the true pope?! Were they damned and excommunicated for their ignorance or mistaken belief?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Alright, How is it then, that Pope Paul IV said that even a successor of his, a future Roman Pontiff could, by heresy, deprive himself of the Papal throne? That is a question, that I would very much like an answer to. In "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio", Pope Paul IV asserts this much.

Had I read not read this document or even a few priest who prior to Vatican II asserted that a long-term vacancy of the papacy was possible or had read Vatican II, I would not be asking these questions.

However, I did. And here am I.

 

[someguy14]

Christ is head of the Catholic Church. The Pope is his viceregent; he administers God's Church on earth. Protestantism does not make sense. It is a mass of conflicting doctrines. And yet all of it is held to be salvific, save only by fundamentalist protestants . . .

If you are desiring to follow Christ, than shouldnt you be glad that the Word of God is being preached to the ends of the earth and that there has to be a place where all of Christs followers can unite and stand against those that fight against Gods word?

We are one, brother, and desire God as our best friend. I say that we do not turn away one that desire's God, instead we welcome with love and open arms to the fold of Christ. It is our greatest commandment to Love God and one another.

 

[someguy14]

I am so sorry Moderators. May God bless.

 

[LinuxUser]

I've many Protestant friends. However, the Church is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The only Church Christ established. Protestant sects are not apart of it. Jesus established only one Church. One must join it in order to save one's soul. (Having of course, Faith and Good dees, without which a man cannot be saved.) God will give one the grace, if one but implores Him.

I thought God saved?

 

[Dark_Lite]

No one said that the Lord isn't faithful. However, was it "unfaithfulness" on our Blessed Lord's part to permit the Great Western Schism and allow half the Church to follow an antipope, believing he to be the true pope?! Were they damned and excommunicated for their ignorance or mistaken belief?

This isn't the Western Schism. This is a tiny, insignificant, yet somewhat vocal portion of the Catholic population deciding they don't like what's happening in the Vatican and then deciding to set up their own church. It is no different than Protestantism.

Alright, How is it then, that Pope Paul IV said that even a successor of his, a future Roman Pontiff could, by heresy, deprive himself of the Papal throne? That is a question, that I would very much like an answer to. In "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio", Pope Paul IV asserts this much.

The Church recognizes and purges heresy, including heretical popes. It might take decades (see: western schism), or it might be quick. No heresy has happened here, just a few people not getting their way and deciding to set up a new papacy.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Someguy14: I am glad to hear that Christ's Gospel is preached to the ends of the Earth. And yea, we must love one another! Christ's peace unto you!