This website (link) catalogues 101 alleged heresies of Benedict XVI. Now, obviously, the RCC does not teach that popes are perfect. I wonder, though, whether any supporter of Ben16 has taken the time to debunk the list above, which - at first glance - appears to be documented with evidence from various sources.
The list is something of a catch 22.
-If the list is true and accurate, Ben16 is more of a liberal protestant than one might think.
-If the list is accurate as the left column (Ben16's views) but inaccurate as to the right column (RCC dogma) and if Ben16's views are the view of the RCC, then all sorts of new issues are raised.
-If the list is accurate as to the right column but not the left column, and if Ben16's views are the view of the RCC, then a different set of new issues are raised.
In any event, regardless of the answers, it would handy to have a continuationalist (as opposed to a sedavacantist) RCer "debunk" or confirm the list. I don't think it's been done, but I admit my fallibility.
-Turretinfan
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Turretinfan,
I found an equally interesting article. It is a documented defense of Roman Catholic inclusivism (Sedevacantist perspective) against the Vatican Council II "cult"'s inclusivism.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
This is one of the best manifestations of Roman Catholic "unity." Roman Catholics want us to abandon Sola Scriptura and submit ourselves to the authority of the Pope, but they can't even agree on the validity of their Popes, and the historic teaching of the RCC on the salvation of non-Roman Catholics.
I'll still go for Sola Scriptura.
I am sorry. I meant Sedevacantist Roman Catholic EXclusivism against Vatican Council II's INclusivism.
RomanCatholicism.org is a great site. I found it a few months ago but haven't found the time to dig through it. The links to documentation of "heresies" and contradictions in current Rome are quite helpful.
I would guess any debunking would resort to a general "development of doctrine" defense.
... a la Cardinal Newman? Perhaps so. But doctrinal development cannot lead to contradictions (X vs. notX) at least not according to the usual statements I hear.
Oh well.
-Turretinfan
I would guess any debunking would resort to a general "development of doctrine" defense.
I'm almost certain that this will be one attempt at a defense, but as TF said it won't help Rome against contradictions. I'd be interested to see which RC apologist(s) comes to the rescue.
Post a Comment