An unlikely question

[WW]

I hope this question is not construed to be impertinent.

Does anyone reading this believe (as I do) that Benedict XVI is simultaneously the legitimate head (Pope) of the Catholic Church and the head of a false religion i.e. the Novus Ordo Church)?

Since I reject both the sede-vacantist positon as being inconsistent with Christ's promise not to abandon His Church and the position that the Novus Ordo is the Catholic religion, the only explanation I can come up with is that both religions exist and are headed by the same man.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I technically did for a time.

[Mithrandylan]

Wanna remake this thread in the Cornfield?  We can't really talk about it here.

[Vetus Ordo]

There's no satisfactory answer to your question, WW, without questioning Catholicism itself.

[Mithrandylan]

There's no satisfactory answer to your question, WW, without questioning Catholicism itself.

Difference between "questioning" and "arriving at the wrong answers." 

[Phillipus Iacobus]

There's no satisfactory answer to your question, WW, without questioning Catholicism itself.

Not satisfactory to you, perhaps.

[Vetus Ordo]

There's no satisfactory answer to your question, WW, without questioning Catholicism itself.

Difference between "questioning" and "arriving at the wrong answers." 

Well, let the chips fall where they may.

[WW]

I have posted only once before - a couple of years ago.  I did not know not to post this question in this forum.

Since someone responded that there is no satisfactory answer, without questioning Catholicism itself, I will at least delve a little deeper before transfering to the other forum.

It is likely, in my opinion, that having the situation of the Church today described to them, most Catholics prior to VCII would have declared such a condition of things as we live with impossible on the grounds that the Holy Ghost would prevent such a thing from happening.  Whether I am right or not that most Catholics would have made such an unqualified assertion, the assertion would have been wrong.  We now know that the Holy Ghost did not prevent Christ's enemies from taking over the Church and its institutions, nor did he prevent wolves in shepherds' clothing from remaking the very teachings of Christ's church.  The Novus Ordo exists.

But we know that the Catholic Church exists, as well, else the son of God was mistaken or a liar (untenable).

Since the Novus Ordo contradicts the Catholic religion, they are separate entities.  They contradict one another; therefore, if one of them is right one of them is wrong.

We see Benedict XVI acting, writing, speaking as head of the Novus Ordo religion.  To deny that he is head of the Novus Ordo religion is to deny the evidence of one's own eyes and ears.
We know the Catholic Church must have a visible head (a pope), and Benedict XVI claims to be, the world thinks him to be, (and I believe him to be) that head.

Just as Catholics of the past (myself included) thought a situation like the one the Church is in today to be impossible, might not we be wrong to think that a true Pope (a bad one) cannot simultaneously be Pope and leader of a false religion?

Why does such a situation (extraordinary though it is) automatically destroy the reality of the Catholic Church?
 

[Joseph11]

The problem with this whole thing is that we're assuming a pope cannot authorize or approve of things that lead away from the Faith.  Trouble is, popes certainly can and have.

Please don't look at me to tell the stories.  The Church's history is replete with them.

Pre-Vatican II Catholics would have had big problems with this because they have nothing in their generational memories to allow for it.  Catholics living in other times wouldn't have wondered much that popes could be anemic or dangerous.  Dante was content to eternally damn one of them after all.  Most modern Catholics just don't think that way about the papacy.  The pope is our father in the Faith.  Why would we question his actions?

Well, for one, it's been done before for very good reasons.

You can't live on theological and canonical principles alone.  If you do, you end up in extremist positions.  At some point you have to realize that the Church has people in it.

The pope isn't a principle.  He's a person.  He can fail like the rest of us.

[Scriptorium]

Is the Pope really doing anything 95% percent of the time that has a direct impact on our life? Think of what has occurred since 2005. I can maybe point to up to five acts which affected me, and even in that case it was somewhat indirectly. Why do I have to figure this all out when my Catholic life would essentially remain the same with the answers? I can't speak for other people, but I have never even felt compelled due to my faith to answer a question about the Pope's status.