QQ to Those Accepting Pope Francis, so called, as being that

I

Me to

Where Peter Is, Reason and Theology, Mercedarian Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

The first I have already posted on snail mail to FSSPX, more precisely St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

It's this.

Given that Pope St. Pius X was a Pope and a good Pope, and enjoyed papal authority even when not speaking infallibly, and given that he endorsed the Pontifical Biblical Commission,

can I, without disrespect to the papacy, hold that

30 June 1909, Q 8, stating that "days" could mean periods of time and interpreting this as longer ones consider:

1) this was not the fullness of orthodoxy
2) it was even than somewhat heterodox
3) it has since then accumulated heterodoxies in the light of more recent scientific data to the point of now amounting to an implication of heresy or even apostasy.

The second I did not pose them, since they don't accept CCC. It's this:

given YOU consider "John Paul II" as having been in full exercise of papal authority in the early 90's, do you find it compatible with the respect for papacy to be opposed to §283?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to

Decrevi, Dominican Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

Fw: QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

Forwarding to two more.

[+ identical to previous]