Wednesday, September 07, 2005

A Tapestry of Papistry

Pope Benedict XVI has competition [?]:


For starters, there is Pope Michael From the website: On July 16, 1990 the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church elected David Bawden as Pope Michael, ending an almost 32 year long interegnum. The claim seems to be that the RCC as embraced by some of the more fervent Roman triumphalists has had no real pope. There is also the claim in a statement of faith that

Others who call themselves Roman Catholic, Traditionalist Catholic, American Catholic, Anglican Catholic, Old-Catholic, Old Roman Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Conservative Catholic, Eastern Catholic, etc. are either in schism, heresy or even apostasy.



But there is competition for St Peter's former job:Pope Pius XIII. From there, we find the following:

... the Catholic Church announced to the world the election of the new pope, Pope Pius XIII. After 40 years of the Holy See being vacant, the Church now has a true pope, the successor to the last pope, Pius XII, who died October 9, 1958.

Fr. Pulvermacher was elected on the 1st ballot having received the necessary 2/3 (plus 1) vote from the College of Electors, the worldwide body with the authority and duty to elect the pope. Fr. Pulvermacher accepted the papacy at 1:20 PM, US Mountain Time on October 24, 1998. The pope gave his first Apostolic blessing to the city and the world immediately after his ascension to the Chair of St. Peter.

At the very moment that Fr. Pulvermacher accepted the election, he became the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, with the full power of the Vicar of Christ.

Catholics around the world rejoiced and proclaimed the traditional words of devotion, “Long Live the Pope!” and words of thanks to God for restoring the papacy, “Deo Gratias!”


These sites are apparently [somewhat?] well-known; I do not offer them in any sort of "Breaking News!" sense. From what I can tell, they're not hoax sites either.

What's the point of this tapestry of papistry that has been woven?

Answer: the claim that sola scriptura, by virtue of supposedly leading to division or a lack of unity with respect to classical Protestants is a stone that star-struck and zealous Roman Catholic converts and internet folks should not throw in this direction, as this is yet another example of disunity under the Roman system.

If SS is false, that is, if there is another infallible rule of faith apart from Scripture, it isn't because Protestants are divided in some fashion. See this other post for an expansion and defense of this statement.

Assuming that Michael and Pius are not hoaxes, but real popes --- and people are welcome to correct me in the comment box if they know something I don't --- it seems safe to say that each of the three sets of papal followers for the men mentioned above will claim that the other sets of followers for the other popes are wrong or "not-as-correct-as-we-are" for whatever reason, whether good or bad. If the Roman Catholic apologist wants to use the fact that there are disagreements under X to impugn X, then he must be willing to have the same implication apply to his side as well.

As for the PP side o' the fence, the whole idea of multi-Poping is a non sequitur with regards to whether Roman Catholicism is true. In other words, I wouldn't argue against Rome on the basis of multiple popes or multiple schools of Catholic thought [liberal, conservative, Sedevacantist, Traditionalist, Modernist, etc]; I would hope that my mythical arch-enemy, a Pedantic Papist [being my archenemy requires at the very least an alliterative handle!], say, would argue against Sola Scriptura on the basis that it is false because there is good evidence that there are other infallible rules of faith, and not on the well-known sociological statement that [gasp!] Protestants disagree!

[Note: this is an updating of an old (relative to this nascent blog's lifetime) standards.]

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home