Since the seat is vacant, there is no pope(Peter) to follow. As soon as a Catholic attains the seat, then we will be obedient.
God never promised that there would always be a pope. Given that the gospel has been preached to all nations, and has been rejected by all nations, we do not deserve a pope.
OK, this makes sense to me. It is like we are in a holding pattern, not like we are just suddenly independent or anarchic.
This means that either the present person holding the title of "Pope", (Ratzinger) could face facts and repudiate the heresies of the past 50 years, or we wait until he is replaced through the normal procedures.
Now, I am not ready to say I would support that "Sede" position myself, but I can see that it is a rational solution to the problem. Before, I was looking at the claim that there is no "Pope" as just some kind of neo-protestantism that is putting the laity into the papal position, and I would rather compromise with the present Church than engage in yet another round of schismatic new theology.
Thank you.
Topic: Explanation of What Is Wrong W/ Vat. II (Read 1577 times)