A few follow-ups..."I don't see sede's as schismatics, as they don't reject the primacy of Rome or its Bishop, only certain claimaints to the Chair."
You're following the commonly understood definition of the term "schism". However that definition is imprecise. The Church defines it somewhat differently. Scoot back over to Canon Law Made Easy and scroll on down to the stand-out sentence "what does canon law have to say about this?"
The author covers just this point while explaining from the precise definition of "schism" as set down in Canon Law 751canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…
Short version: sedevacantists aren't discussed in Canon Law, but their actions
are and, yeah, their actions conform with the definition of schism. Hey, I'm not trying to corner you or anything. This is why the Church has
laws."What I am concerned about is that many Catholics do not take the discerning route that you have laid out well, but instead are still stuck in a pollyannist papolotry....":D :D :D "pollyannist papolotry".
.. Thank you for that. Oh, my sides. :D :D :D
Yes. I know exactly what you're talking about. Certain species of nuns are the literal embodiment of it. I believe the popular term for that behavior is a "personality cult". Those are always somewhat queasy for outsiders to witness.
Depending on your age, you might have missed the short-lived (yet no less passionate) cult that sprang up around JFK. Now that
was something to watch. Swing over to eBay sometime and do some searches for JFK memorabilia. It won't take long before you notice the quasi-religious nature of the goods. Nearly every devotional item that was popular with Catholics during the 60s had some JFK-themed counterpart.
Anyway, yes, your concern is a valid one and I'm certain your scenario can and will happen exactly as you're predicting. That's the wicked plan the enemies within the Church have as their end goal: "a globalist eco-pagan spirituality"
What I see happening here on GTV, particularly with the sedevacantist crowd, is no less pernicious.
Francis' critics are no less badly catechised. They reject the modernist teachings you described and then expand that rejection to literally every Catholic teaching (even those found in the Gospels) that contradicts their own sour, usually bigoted world-view.
understand your dilemma. Titles like "His Holiness" or "Holy Father" were instituted at a time when they truly meant something. They implied a reverence
for the one who held them. I believe this is what you and many other Catholics today balk at. Sadly, the titles aren't always descriptive of the men who hold them. History has shown many men who were "His Holiness
" and were also corrupt. They were "bad Popes" and history is full of them. But... they were
Is the flakey dancing, giggling, crying Cardinal Tagle truly worthy of the title "Eminence"? 'course not. Is that obese biker-bishop down in Florida show any "Excellency"? Nah... Some Cardinals and Bishops are eminent
. Others aren't. The same is true for the Popes. Some were holy amd some... *sigh*
But that isn't anything new, either.
There's an obvious parallel within the Church itself today. Look at all the priests who've scandalized and abused children. The title "Father"
carries the same implicit reverence for his person. Is a hedonist, paedophile priest still a priest? Yes. He's a bad priest an impious priest, a wicked priet. But he still holds that title "Father"
and the office within the Church's hierarchy.
The same is true for the corrupt bishops who repeatedly transferred those priests, and the popes who looked the other way. All of that was going on long before Jorge Bergoglio started trying to reinvent the Church. There have always been bad priests, bad bishops, bad cardinals, and bad popes. But that doesn't change that they -do- hold the office, regardless of what words we use to address the man holding it."this man who is destroying the Church, to ever call him "holy father," or refer to this wolf in any way that esteems his authority is repulsive to me, and hypocritical."
I don't see hypocrisy in recognizing a Catholic cleric's lawful claim on a title or using the conventional forms of address associated with it. Because, in truth, the general criticisms you're making againt "Bergoglio" could just as easily be applied to his predecessors. Many critics have dissected the various teachings of the last four popes, notably JP II and BXVI and found what they argue is a staggering amount of false doctrines. If they're right, the destruction of the Church has been going on for a lot longer than the current pontiff.
...and yet for all that, the Church recognizes John Paul II as a saint. Will I refer to him as Saint John Paul II? Yes. Am I going to ask for his intercession? Probably not. ;-)
There's a secular parallel. The US has had leftist openly Marxist Presidents who've actively worked for the destruction of this country. I recognize their claim on the title and, if I ever had met them, I'd address them as "Mr. President" despite my loathing for them. It doesn't mean I agree with what they're doing or approve of their actions.
Anyway, hope this helps.