Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16239 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:09:42 AM »

Good point, most SV point to 1958=last valid Pope........some accept John 23rd, some might go later, has seen someone argue that Paul VI validly elected, then lost seat somewhere......

some good reasonable points

Belloc · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:12:40 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Siri has been accused of accepting V2 and celebrating the NO.....something to weed out there......
Also, accepting the election and stepping down, for whatever reason, is a sticking point with me. Siri might have been elected, true enough, but he stepepd down, reason not as important as the step-down......certainly to me being elected does not automatically=Pope, hence after his step down, that was that.....refused to be crowned,etc....seems somewhere in history, some one was elected and was not formally installed prior to death, seems like that person is listed as non-Pope......could be wrong..

TKGS · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:34:51 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

Also, accepting the election and stepping down, for whatever reason, is a sticking point with me. Siri might have been elected, true enough, but he stepepd down, reason not as important as the step-down...

This has always been my objection to the so-called "Siri thesis" as well. It just doesn't make sense that he could be considered the pope when he publicly accepted the election of someone else.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:36:46 AM »

I would have to agree. I suppose the Siri Thesis is a possibility, but I have a difficult time accepting the notion that man could be elected Pope, then turn around and deny his own election, submit to the election of someone else, and then celebrate the Novus Ordo.

Nishant · « **Reply #39 on:** August 21, 2012, 11:48:26 AM »

Agreed. A couple of tidbits about Cardinal Siri.

Describing Pope John Paul II, in 1985,

"He is the Vicar of Christ. The words of the Gospel are applied to John Paul II since the moment of his election, just as they were to Peter ... "

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_149_Siri-JPII.html

And what should be even more unnerving to the dogmatic Siri-ites, as late as 1988,

"On June 22 of that year, when Lefebvre announced his intention to ordain four bishops, the Genoese cardinal wrote to Lefebvre: "Monsignor, I beseech you on my knees not to break from the Church! You have been an apostle, a bishop, you must remain in your place. At our age we are at the door of eternity. Think! I am always waiting for you, here in the Church and later in Paradise"

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/02/cardinal-siri-and-archbishop-marcel.html

Assuredly, these are not the words of a man who ever believed himself Pope. If Cardinal Siri really was who his followers think he was, he would have above all confided in Archbishop Lefebvre the truth. Who else, and who better, if that was the reality and that his intention? But no, it clearly was not.