Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter  (Read 11023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belloc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6601
  • Reputation: +614/-0
  • Gender: Male
An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2012, 01:35:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    still reading the articles, but I find Lucian Pulvermacher and the whole "election" thing very bizarre and rather protestant-like.

    Does he have many followers? out of the SV population, how many recognize him do you estimate?


    correction, did-did not remember when posting this, but he is dead---anyone in his group claim the mantle, now?
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #16 on: August 10, 2012, 01:37:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    still reading the articles, but I find Lucian Pulvermacher and the whole "election" thing very bizarre and rather protestant-like.

    Does he have many followers? out of the SV population, how many recognize him do you estimate?


    It is bizare and his followers are very few as far as I know.  I never followed the goings on of that deal but only read second hand.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #17 on: August 10, 2012, 01:39:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant2011
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    I like your signature.  I was looking for that one myself.  


    Hello John. Yes, it's a statement he made on his deathbed that sums up St.Thomas, his profound humility inspite of his towering intellect, his complete confidence in the authority of the Church and his childlike faith in Christ till the end. He is truly the Prince of theologians and Doctors and a model for us lesser mortals who wish to study sacred doctrine.

    Quote
    Your anology is a good one and makes sense though it does not refute the argument. To refute it you would have to show where the Church has taught that there was some kind of limit to the duration.  But in case anyone would try to find such a teaching, I can save you some time by saying you will find no such teaching.


    Okay, but I don't accept this, because the idea that the Pope is someone non-essential to the continued propagation and growth of the Church strikes me as incorrect.

    I'd say that there is indeed a natural limit to an interregnum, but it comes from another Catholic principle.

    Quote from: Belloc
    If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:


    Some think an election could be conducted by the Roman clergy in case of necessity, since it falls to them to elect him who would be Bishop of Rome, to which Bishopric the supreme pontificate is intrinsically attached. But most of these same theologians also held that an election accepted by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy is indubitably valid and must be regarded as such, for such universal acceptance is a sufficient, though not necessary, sign of a certain and valid election. Archbishop Lefebvre himself once cited this as the common teaching of theologians. Msgr. Noort lays out a similar idea.




    Two people with no anymosity, I'm sure there is more.  Very good objections.  I will be leaving and may not post until Monday.  I can only say not that the Pope is indeed essential and that is why we are in this mess.

    Thanks for helping my sharpen my antlers, I will try to answer respond to this when I get back.

    God bless, Mary keep,
    John
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #18 on: August 10, 2012, 01:42:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • perhaps, in wake of his death and with internet, they coupd do election by poll or e-vote :rolleyes:

    that said, tongue-cheek, wonder what tey are doing now......

    Lane has some rather good, clear points, contra-Pulvermacher
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #19 on: August 13, 2012, 09:00:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What do you gentlement think of the following article?  Please elaborate:

    http://www.sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html

    Fr. O'Reilly On The Idea Of A Long-Term Vacancy Of The Holy See

    By John Daly. Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999.
    In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.

    For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:



    that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and

    that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).


    Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:

    Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.

    Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.

    Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.

    He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.

    The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circumstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.

    At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.

    In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.

    Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):

    "Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."

    Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.

    We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):

    "If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."

    Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".

    Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):

    "A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."

    This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:

    "The Council assembled in 1414...

    "We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."

    Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

    And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

    "There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...

    "The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

    While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)


    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Malleus 01

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 484
    • Reputation: +447/-0
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #20 on: August 13, 2012, 04:09:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:

    The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?

    What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?

    How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?

    (and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)

    This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...


    Being a Divine Institution - what limits GOD in providing a solution?  I can think of several unpleasant scenarios in which this is accomplished.

    At the time of Noah - GOD came up with a solution for Mass Infidelity.

    In the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah , GOD came up with a solution for Mass Infidelity.

    But before I seem bloodthirsty , GOD likewise had a solution for Nineveh , but the people heeded his warning and averted their own demise.

    Today , when the President of the United States can publicly come right out and say he supports two Homosexuals marrying one another , are we to assume GOD is merely looking the other way and OK with it?

    I have a very deep and sad feeling that the solution that none of us wants to talk about or think about is more than plausible.

    We live in the age of Nuclear Proliferation.

    We live in the age of Mass Hedonistic , Materialistic , and Atheistic glorification, and the sins and blasphemies inherent to these beliefs and yet , with hardly any large outcry by the Masses to defend the Morality of GOD and for the culprits to cease in their grave offenses.  For all intents and purposes , this amounts to consent on our part.

    Reading the Prophesies for the 3 days of darkness etc , I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist , but I see plausibility for a mass chastisement being the prime mover behind a return to Traditional Catholicism - where GOD makes it abundantly  clear to those who survive what is and isn't acceptable and who his New Orthodox Vicar is.

    And BTW , I do hope I am wrong about all of this.

    Pax

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #21 on: August 14, 2012, 10:50:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So Belloc, Nichant, have we settled the question, is it still up in the air, or are a hundred percent sure that there is a limit to the length of interregnums?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #22 on: August 14, 2012, 01:17:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've read Fr.Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.

    Quote
    Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.


    Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

    This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7077
    • Reputation: +438/-195
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #23 on: August 14, 2012, 01:31:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I recognise Pope Gregory XVII and that a successor was most likely elected at his death in 1989. IF the Chair of Peter is vacant, it has only been about 20 yrs at the most.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #24 on: August 14, 2012, 01:36:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    I've read Fr.Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.

    Quote
    Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.


    Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

    This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.


    I just wrote a lenghty response to you and deleted it by mistake  :fryingpan:

    I will just say, I like that you stay on the subject and respond logically.  It is very refreshing.  But I am rather frustrated at myself right now.  Perhaps I'll come back again and try it all over again some other time.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #25 on: August 17, 2012, 10:32:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    true, but if someone could, address some of my last posts comments and questions if at all possible with time/space permitting......


    Okay.........

    Quote from: Belloc
    If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:


    Okay...........

    Quote
    The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?


    Huh? The longer [it] goes on ..., one will be left ... and, who is electable ...?
    Sorry, you're not making any sense now.

    Quote
    What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?

    How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?

    (and yes, [who?] have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)

    This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...


    Some of us have not this, the boggle, in the SV opinion?

    I would like to address your post but it's not intelligible.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #26 on: August 17, 2012, 10:53:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Nishant
    I've read Fr. Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.

    Quote
    Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.


    The following is a good example of why laymen should not try to practice being
    a theologian:

    Quote
    Quote

    Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

    This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.


    I just wrote a [lengthy] response to you and deleted it by mistake  :fryingpan:

    I will just say, I like that you stay on the subject and respond logically.  It is very refreshing.  But I am rather frustrated at myself right now.  Perhaps I'll come back again and try it all over again some other time.


    Sometimes that happens to me, so to avoid the problem, I have found that by
    typing into another program (I use Notepad because it's lightweight and uses no
    RAM to speak of) I can then save and update my words, and then when I'm
    ready, just paste them into the REPLY box here. It takes a few extra steps but it
    saves a lot of grief.
    It also helps to see the words in three different views so then
    I can find typos or missing words, etc., more easily before hitting "Reply."
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3464
    • Reputation: +1272/-97
    • Gender: Female
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #27 on: August 17, 2012, 02:29:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just wish to say to Lover of Truth, you explain the crisis of the Church so thoroughly  and enjoy reading your posts!  The more simple the explaining the easier it is to grasp it.  I don't know how many people realize that the church is going to her crucifixion and will resurrect.  Most of us know enough of the quotes of Christ. We just forget and once it is brought to our attention, the light comes on! Thank you again for taking time to write good posts.

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #28 on: August 17, 2012, 02:41:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: Belloc
    true, but if someone could, address some of my last posts comments and questions if at all possible with time/space permitting......


    Okay.........

    Quote from: Belloc
    If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:


    Okay...........

    Quote
    The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?


    Huh? The longer [it] goes on ..., one will be left ... and, who is electable ...?
    Sorry, you're not making any sense now.

    Quote
    What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?

    How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?

    (and yes, [who?] have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)

    This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...


    Some of us have not this, the boggle, in the SV opinion?

    I would like to address your post but it's not intelligible.


    was clear enough to me, but not to you, sooooo....gues it goes nowhere then......

    lets say since 1958 chair is empty, lets say crisis continues even longer then 54 yrs, say to 2020, now 62 yrs of a vacant chair.......
    who then can be elected as Pope, as most clergyare dead that are validly elected?
    or do we draw from the 4 bishops of SSPX, plus any Sede priests/Bishops???

    fairly clear questions.....I thought.....
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
    « Reply #29 on: August 17, 2012, 02:42:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    So Belloc, Nichant, have we settled the question, is it still up in the air, or are a hundred percent sure that there is a limit to the length of interregnums?


    in another thread, yes, you explained your views and positions well.......

    thank you!! :applause:
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16