Author Topic: The problem with Sedevacantism (Read 2622 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #15 on:** June 29, 2016, 09:28:12 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: roscoe
There is no such thing as Sedevacantism....

I have been seeing you post this some in older posts. What do you mean by that?

Pls read my Signature below.... :ready-to-eat:

Quote
No one has ever presented Any evidence from the Bible, a Pope, Church Council, Father, Doctor, Saint, historian, INQ, Bps Pastoral Letter, nor Catholic Encyclopedia or Dictionary that there is or ever has been such a person as a 'sede vacantist' or a state of affairs known as 'sede vacantism' before the V2 era.

I'm sure you have discussed this topic many times or you would not have this as your Signature. Sorry if you are sick of it.

For clarification. Are you saying that the words "sede" and "vacante" do not exist and therefore have no meaning?
Or are you saying that there has never been an instance in Church history where there has been a vacant Seat of St. Peter?
Or are you saying that no one before Vatican II defined or imagined such a situation?
Or are you merely shedding light on the uniqueness of the current situation involving the Church?

1-- no

2-- no, although technically there is a Vatican official( whose title I cannot recall at the moment) who attends to papal business during any prolonged conclave.

3-- yes

4-- ?

:cheers:

roscoe · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2016, 09:38:46 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: roscoe
My position is that there is a pope somewhere-- I can not tell you who he is because I do not know. :detective:

I see.
I haven't studied like I should in a long time now but is your position similar to the Cardinal Siri (not sure if that was his name) theory. That he was elected Pope but went into exile or something?
I have a question, is there a teaching that says there must be a Pope right now or at every given moment?
There is no teaching that says there can't be a space between Popes right?

1--You are correct. There are a few of us here who recognise the legal election of Card Siri as Pope Gregory XVII. He may also have been re-elected in 1963 & 1978.

The evidence seems to establish that nefarious means were employed to illegally depose him.

2-- I don't think so

3-- I do not know...

:detective:

roscoe · « **Reply #17 on:** June 29, 2016, 11:50:04 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Roscoe,

I asked
Quote
Or are you saying that no one before Vatican II defined or imagined such a situation?

You said:
Quote
3-- yes

A theologian speaking around Vatican I, on the subject of the Western Schism and the confusion surrounding it, seemed to teach that an Interregnum could last a very long time and would not be inconsistent with the promises of Christ...

Quote
"...not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum…If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical(unreal). They would say it could not be...But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises... But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced...All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." ( Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays 1882)

Assuming he was the only one who believed that the current vacant seat situation is possible, well at least it's one, and a prominent one at that.

Possibly I am wrong about that but I don't want to get into a theological discussion. In any case---Fr O'Reilly nowhere uses the term sede vacantist or sede vacantism...

BTW--- In the GWS, there was never a time when there was no living Pope.

:detective:

qeddeq · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2016, 12:58:17 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: An even Seven
Roscoe,

I asked
Quote
Or are you saying that no one before Vatican II defined or imagined such a situation?

You said:
Quote
3-- yes

A theologian speaking around Vatican I, on the subject of the Western Schism and the confusion surrounding it, seemed to teach that an Interregnum could last a very long time and would not be inconsistent with the promises of Christ...

Quote
"...not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum…If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical(unreal). They would say it could not be...But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises... But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced...All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." ( Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays 1882)

Assuming he was the only one who believed that the current vacant seat situation is possible, well at least it's one, and a prominent one at that.

Possibly I am wrong about that but I don't want to get into a theological discussion. In any case---Fr O'Reilly nowhere uses the term sede vacantist or sede vacantism...

BTW--- In the GWS, there was never a time when there was no living Pope.

:detective:

roscoe a theological discussion is required if we are to determine this issue. At least you're honest. People say they're sick of SV issues, then why do they bring it up so often? Every two or three days there's a thread on some variation of it. IF people don't want to box, then they shouldn't get in the ring.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2016, 01:49:31 PM »

I make the observation of sede vacante. It is my own opinion; For myself, it is the only opinion that seems reasonable. I do not imagine that my opinions are anything other than my own. I am interested in discussing the topic.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2016, 01:55:17 PM »

I have to agree with roscoe's signature line. "sedevacantism" is an odd expression.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2016, 02:55:33 PM »

sedevacantism is odd, however, the expression opens the door.

Example: When explaining to others that we are Roman Catholics who hold to the position of sedevacantism. Most will say ... "what is that?"

At that point you can teach them the truth about the "pope" of today and why he makes headlines every day with his strange teachings, such as baptising aliens, urged priests around the world to be more accepting of gαys and ... downplays the idea of "living in sin" and suggests that priests should use their own discretion on whether divorced Catholics in bad marriages can take Communion, and other things like the Vatican admits they own the giant telescope named LUCIFER.

We can tell them that sede vacant means the Seat of Peter is currently without a True Pope sitting there. We can tell them that the current pope has adapted to the world, and makes man the god, by changing all the practices and teachings that the past popes have taught, are now for the benefit of man, not God.

The most important issue we can teach them is that the Church is still here, the gates of Hell have not prevailed, it is just smaller now. We can tell them not to be scandalized by what they read in the newspaper anymore of how the Catholic church has changed because it really has not; it is the robbers who now hold the property of the Catholic church, who are pretenders in wolves clothing that are in control by changing what appears to be the Church, an optical illusion.

We can urge them to pray a daily rosary because it is said that someday the scapular and rosary will save the world. Nothing was said that the Mass and Sacraments would save the world because Our Blessed Mother knew the Mass and Sacraments would be dumb downed to nothing. An abomination of desolation as foretold in the Bible.

roscoe · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2016, 06:20:29 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: roscoe

Possibly I am wrong about that but I don't want to get into a theological discussion. In any case---Fr O'Reilly nowhere uses the term sede vacantist or sede vacantism...

Let me just say, in the first century they did not, from the beginning call the Christian Church, "Catholic". The reality of the Catholic Church was there just as is the reality of the Papal Office, at the moment, not being occupied. I know you have put so much into this idea that since the term was never used before, that it can't exist, even making it your motto; but this is highly irrelevant. Sedevacantism is not claimed to be a dogma, it is a situation. Is it impossible the there was a Great Western Schism just because no one defined the term beforehand?

Actually the concept of 'Schism' was alive and well at the time of the Schism of the Byzantine Church in 1054 over Iconography. :detective:

roscoe · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2016, 06:24:55 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Also, I agree, even in the second line of the quote from Fr. O'reilly, he says that there was no such interregnum. (I will say that even among the confusion, real popes died and there was not a real successor immediately following the death).
The whole point of me quoting this was that you said no one imagined the situation of Sede Vacantism , but I was providing proof that a Prominent Catholic Theologian around Vatican I did in fact imagine it and said it was not inconsistent with the promises of Christ.

Maybe so but Fr O'Reilly DOES NOT use either the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist'. :detective:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #24 on:** June 30, 2016, 06:37:02 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sede_vacante

Quote

After the death or resignation of a pope, the Holy See enters a period of sede vacante. In this case the particular church is the Diocese of Rome and the "vacant seat" is the cathedra of Saint John Lateran, the cathedral church of the Bishop of Rome. During this period, the Holy See is administered by a regency of the College of Cardinals

According to Universi Dominici gregis, the government of the Holy See, sede vacante, (and therefore of the Catholic Church) falls to the College of Cardinals, but in a very limited capacity. At the same time, all the heads of the Roman Curia "cease to exercise" their offices. The exceptions are the Cardinal Camerlengo, who is charged with managing the property of the Holy See, and the Major Penitentiary, who continues to exercise his normal role. If either has to do something which normally requires the assent of the Pope, he has to submit it to the College of Cardinals. Papal legates continue to exercise their diplomatic roles overseas, and both the Vicar General of Rome and the Vicar General for the Vatican City State continue to exercise their pastoral role during this period. The postal administration of the Vatican City State prepares and issues special postage stamps for use during this particular period, known as "sede vacante stamps".

I learned about the stamp in Catholic school, no doubt before you were born.

TKGS · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:36:02 PM »

At one time the Church had never use the terms, "Trinity", "transubstantiation", or "Filioque". If roscoe had lived during the early Church he would have been railing against the use of those terms as untraditional as well.

I can see it now, "It may be what happens at the Breaking of the Bread, but St. Paul never used the word transubstantiation to describe it!"

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #26 on:** July 05, 2016, 02:11:42 PM »

Quote from: qeddeq

the SV position is based on the following premise: that a duly elected pope can be an antipope. The non-SV position is that a duly elected pope can never be an antipope. The mere fact of his being elected pope, validly and licitly, guarantees that he is a true pope in the minds of non-sv catholics. Therefore, there is nothing the duly elected pope could say or do that could be proof that he is an antipope. If Bergoglio is a true pope, then there is no such thing as a false pope, unless one not elected validly. You could have a pope who makes bergoglio look like Pius V and Non-SV catholics would still recognize him as pope. If this be error show me.

Very well-stated!

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #27 on:** July 05, 2016, 02:16:06 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: TKGS
The problem with sedeplenism is that it is something positive every single time the pope opens his mouth. Instead of recognizing one fact (the papal claimant is a heretic) the sedeplenist must judge the pope daily.

As for as obsessing...I find that it is the anti-sedevacantists who are obsessed with the issue.

At our chapel, we do call ourselves Catholic. We don't call ourselves Resistance, SSPX, or Community, or anything like that.

This is so true, hardly ever does anyone discuss what Francis is doing, and if I for one mention something I read here most laity will respond with "Really or ... wow!" and thats it.

From our sermons, we hear true Catholic devotions, doctrines, feast days. The only time I hear mention of what is going on in the new church would be special times when we might have out of town people visitors from SSPX because that is what they are so accustomed to hearing.

Yes. SVs get the faith preached to them but R & R's are always talking about what was wrong with what Francis just did or said and why, despite that, he is still Pope. One is taught the faith, the others are taught that it is laudable to systematically disobey and refuse submission to Popes for 50 years.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #28 on:** July 05, 2016, 04:19:11 PM »

Quote

The problem with Sedevacantism

I don't have any problem with the idea, I only have a problem with the way some sedes behave towards others. It is no different though, than the way SSPXers behave today towards "the Resistance" (anyone that does not kiss up to Fellay).

There are idiots like that in every camp.