Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter  (Read 16182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2012, 10:32:33 AM »
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.

An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2012, 10:53:34 AM »
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."


An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2012, 02:29:41 PM »
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.

An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2012, 02:41:51 PM »
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.....

An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2012, 02:42:55 PM »
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: