Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16226 times)

Sunbeam · « **Reply #30 on:** August 17, 2012, 02:50:26 PM »

Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 20, 2012, 08:11:03 PM »

Quote from: Sunbeam

Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

I think the argument really boils down to a simple Truth. We are in Uncharted Waters. In my view , no matter which theory one wants to believe - the simple truth is - nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Catholic Church before. For those who say B 16 et al are legitimate Popes = There have never been Popes who have deviatd from sound Catholic Doctrine and who have blatently contradicted their predesessors like these last 5 have. For the Sedevacantist - There has never been an interregnum that lasted this long with no end in sight not to mention the Visibility issue of the Holy Roman Pontiff.

So what do we do as Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Holy Mother the Church. In eithr case Avoiding these Popes / False Popes seems to be the Prudent course of action.

Pax

Belloc · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:55:10 AM »

Quote from: Sunbeam

Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

to me, a non-SV, 50 yrs is unprecedented, but by no means absurd.

all in all, one struggles to do right.......for me, do not really think about Pope too much........stick to pre-1962 teachings and practices best as possible...the NO types too Papalidolotry, hang on his every word and jump on bandwagon of statements, common for the K of C types too.....

Nishant · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:42:12 AM »

Quote from: Sunbeam

Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

Each alternative obviously poses its own significant problems, but as to which is more absurd, or rather which is less certain, I think it is definitely the assertion that these Popes have certainly lost their office by virtue of their actions. In light of the theological certitude that such an eventuality continuing on for now 54 years appears at odds with certain essential constitutive elements of the Church, I'd say we might need to re-evaluate that judgment which may at one time have seemed reasonable. Cardinal Billot's evaluation of Savanarola's arguments may be helpful.

Savanarola was an intelligent man, he was no fool. And he was thoroughly convinced, of Pope Alexander VI that "the man is not a Christian - he does not even believe in any longer that there is a God". Had the Pope lost his office? But Cardinal Billot in describing the matter merely applied some generally accepted principles about universal acceptance and said that Pope Alexander VI undoubtedly was the Pope and most later ecclesiastical writers agree with him.

To me, that shows which is more certain.

Edit: Oh, and Roscoe, I think sede-impedism is in some respects a more powerful theory than sede vacantism. But, as for Cardinal Siri, by all accounts he accepted the Council, the new Mass and accorded public veneration to the Popes, while not supporting any sedevacantist movement.

TKGS · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:58:33 AM »

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...

First of all, not all sedevacantists assume that the vacancy began in 1958. The election of John XXIII is a convenient point in time because the "changes in the Church" seem to be able to be traced to this event. However, until Benedict 16, all of the men elected were undoubtedly valid bishops and could have been popes. I'm not going to get into detailed discussions as to whether they ever validly assumed the papacy but each (other than John Paul 1) made their heresy and/or apostasy so clearly manifest and public at some time that no one (even you) would have described a person who did these things as a "Catholic" unless he were thought to be pope.

Secondly, when a Catholic assumes the bishopric of Rome, if any one of the consecrators is a traditional Catholic bishop, his consecration will be valid. At some point in time we will have a new pope, though it will take some time before he is universally accepted.

What, I think, will be the greatest sign that a true and valid Catholic bishop has assumed the papacy will be that traditional Catholics begin to accept him while the Novus Ordo catholics and, most especially bishops, go into schism.

As I said, the election of a true pope will be a tumultuous time for the Church. I would not be surprised if he's only able to remain in the Vatican because the Swiss Guards protects him. I would not be surprised if nearly all the cardinals declare that they made a mistake and elect an anti-pope as happened once before when the pope returned to Rome.

Whatever happens, it will not be something that only a few people can discern.