Well, wow.

Ladislaus, I know you have difficulties with the R&R position, and we've discussed some or most of these elsewhere. You still misunderstand what canonists and theologians teach regarding the distinction between convalidation as a cause of an election acquiring validity and universal acceptance as a sign and effect of a valid election. I think I cited at least 5 authorities explaining it elsewhere. But that's not the point here.

This thread is entirely about the reasons for the first R, why it is necessary to recognize the Pope. It is self-evident that it is necessary to resist error, therefore to prove the second R, and thereby the R&R position (and what you are attacking is a strawman and a misrepresentation of it), it is only necessary to carefully define after that, according to pre-Vatican II teaching, in what circuмstances, teaching and acts a Pope can be questioned and resisted.

In particular is a rejection of the claim that an interregnum can be indefinitely extended. In the past, you have yourselves said it is probable that the Church would defect in a 100 year interregnum, or at least a 500 year one, and asked for a definition of what the limits are. So I put you on the spot and ask you why you think an interregnum cannot last forever, if formal Apostolic succession can indeed be continued apart from the actual Petrine succession.

I say that it cannot, for only a Pope, and certainly not a heretical non-Pope, can appoint bishops to offices, and all offices or episcopal sees cannot be vacant, otherwise formal Apostolic succession has ceased. In this way, the Apostolic succession and the Petrine succession are inextricably interconnected.

Likewise, only a Pope can incardinate Roman clergy, and Roman clergy cannot cease to exist, as St. Robert taught, Pope Sixtus IV defined, and Msgr. Fenton among other theologians explain. But if all the acts of the non-Pope grant neither stability nor right to anyone, those he attempts to incardinate into the diocese of Rome are not really incardinated. This then is another reason why an interregnum cannot continue indefinitely.

There are two consequences of such an absurdity, that the Catholic Church will cease to be Apostolic, and that She will lost Her Roman character, both of which are impossible. Therefore, an interregnum cannot be indefinitely extended. Can we agree on this much?

This is not something exceptional or strange, because it is a defined dogma that Peter must have perpetual successors, that what Christ has established in Peter and the Roman Church where the Petrine succession is continued must "of necessity remain forever" (Vatican I). It is a condemned proposition that "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Constance).

There is actually an article in Tradition in Action about how Sedevacantism and Progressivism goes hand and hand:

www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B277_SedeProgres.html

In the cited TIA article, they advice: "Never take a sede-vacantist position. Their leaders consciously or unconsciously follow an agenda to take people outside of the Church, as the Protestants did in the 16th century.

Instead of attacking the Progressivism that has infiltrated the Church, they use it as an ally to justify their own position. When the Pope goes to the Dome of the Rock, for example, they do not show concern for the suffering of the Church. They just say, "See, we are right in our stand of I happen to think that sede-vacantism."

 It is also curious to notice that they challenge any Catholic leader who takes an effective stance of Resistance. The endless discussions they try to engage him in are not to change their own minds - which they never do - but to waste the time of the person who holds the right position".

No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."

He has not taken time to answer anything that Nishant has proposed, apart from trying to demean the R&R position. Nishant proposed a valid conundrum faced by sedevecantists, and it has not been explained adequately. Perhaps it cannot, and that's okay. But just say so, instead of throwing up a bunch of red herrings.

In other words: R&R has problems(!)- but I will not answer the problems found within sedevecantism.

It is self-evident that it is necessary to resist error, therefore to prove the second R, and thereby the R&R position (and what you are attacking is a strawman and a misrepresentation of it), it is only necessary to carefully define after that, according to pre-Vatican II teaching, in what circuмstances, teaching and acts a Pope can be questioned and resisted.
...

In particular is a rejection of the claim that an interregnum can be indefinitely extended. In the past, you have yourselves said it is probable that the Church would defect in a 100 year interregnum, or at least a 500 year one, and asked for a definition of what the limits are. So I put you on the spot and ask you why you think an interregnum cannot last forever, if formal Apostolic succession can indeed be continued apart from the actual Petrine succession.

As I posted earlier, I acknowledge the problems with both sides of this issue:

SVism -- problems regarding indefectibility vis-a-vis Petrine succession.

R&R -- problems regarding indefectibility vis-a-vis large-scale failure of the Magisterium.

There are plausible resolutions to the Petrine succession problem:
1) sedeprivationism (continuity of material succession)
2) lengthy vacancy of the Holy See does not inherently cause defection
3) underground Church
4) supplied jurisdiction by the Church
5) a handful of Pius XII-era bishops are still alive
6) Siri theory
7) Catholic prophecy to the effect that Apostolic Succession will appear almost to have ceased
8) Our Lady of LaSalette referring to the Church being in "eclipse" and Rome becoming the Seat of the Antichrist
9) Catherine Emmerick talking about the two Churches, one a dark imposter Church

There's ZERO resolution to the problem that the Magisterium has failed.  That means the defection of the Catholic Church.  Period.  We can quibble about the conditions for infallibility of the Magisterium, but the non-infallible part of the Magisterium was always understood as the relatively trivial, non-binding, less authoritative pronouncements here and there by particular Popes, but teachings made on a grand scale (in an Ecuмenical Council) and universal disciplines (such as the Novus Ordo Missae) CANNOT harm the faith and lead souls into error.  When quibbling over conditions of infallibility, we lose the forest for the trees, the forest being that the notion of infallibility means that the Church as a whole cannot be lead into error on such a grand scale.

I find it inconceivable that you think that the Episcopal Body cannot fail in recognizing a legitimate pope but that this same Episcopal Body can fail in adhering to and teaching error to the Universal Church and that this same Episcopal Body can accept and implement universally a harmful Rite of Mass.

I find it inconceivable that you acknowledge the infallibility of canonizations but then ignore the infallibility of universal discipline.

All these types of infallibility actually DERIVE theologically from the Church's overall indefectibility.  Theologians teach that the Church is infallible when it comes to universal discipline BECAUSE saying the contrary would undermine the Church's indefectibility.

You can slice the legitimacy of the V2 Popes any which way you'd like, but do NOT tell me that the Magisterium has failed.  That's heretical.  Period.  It's not even debatable.

No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."

No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.

To answer the "time limit" question, there can be no inherent time limit, so the theoretical duration of a sede vacante cannot be determined by time.  There's nothing substantially different between one year, three years, ten years, fifty years.

So the max duration has to be defined along the lines of the juridical continuity question.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: s2srea

No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."

No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.

Up until a few minutes ago, you did everything but respond to Nishant's points; there was no relevant argument.

Anyways, its hard not to be stupid when you're me.

I'm sorry that I got upset.  This argument spills over from multiple other threads on the same subject, so there's a background that was implied.

Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism.  I can't stand it.  There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration.  There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic.  I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic.  I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic.  I just want to be a Catholic.  If I went by what I liked, I would be a Novus Ordo Catholic.  But my conscience simply will not permit that.  I often envy those who just blithely go to the Novus Ordo and haven't a care in the world.