Author Topic: Is this the longest vacancy of the papacy ? (Read 3198 times)

curiouscatholic23 · « **on:** November 22, 2011, 09:01:08 PM »

My fellow sedevacantists, assuming we haven't had a pope since 1958, that means we have had a vacancy for 53 years. Prior to this, what was the longest vacancy? This has me really worried. There is no precedent for this long of a vacancy I believe.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2011, 09:06:52 PM »

There was never a "vacancy" prior to Vatican II. All popes regarded at antipopes were regarded as such due to invalid election, there was a valid Pontiff at the time of these antipopes, however. All of these antipopes opposed true Popes.

For the time being I think John Paul I was a true Pope, so if true that would mean the Chair has only been vacant for 33 years. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. Pope or not, God is always watching over His Church.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2011, 09:37:27 PM »

The longest prior period of sede vacante that I can recall off the top of my head from my reading of Church History was more than 3 but less than 4 years.

The principle is established that the Church continues in a period of sedevacante.

If there can be a vacancy of 3 years why not 5? If 5 why not 10? If 10 why not 20? Etc.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:10:56 PM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

The longest prior period of sede vacante that I can recall off the top of my head from my reading of Church History was more than 3 but less than 4 years.

The principle is established that the Church continues in a period of sedevacante.

If there can be a vacancy of 3 years why not 5? If 5 why not 10? If 10 why not 20? Etc.

good point, I've never looked at that way. It just seems extraordinary that we could go this long, and literally have over 95% of self professed catholics fall under the claws of this Vatican II sect and pseudo-hierarchy.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:30:30 PM »

No doubt these are extraordinary and portentious times, that are disturbing and confusing to many people.

We need to pray and watch.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:34:02 PM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

Quote from: Roman Catholic
The longest prior period of sede vacante that I can recall off the top of my head from my reading of Church History was more than 3 but less than 4 years.

The principle is established that the Church continues in a period of sedevacante.

If there can be a vacancy of 3 years why not 5? If 5 why not 10? If 10 why not 20? Etc.

good point, I've never looked at that way. It just seems extraordinary that we could go this long, and literally have over 95% of self professed catholics fall under the claws of this Vatican II sect and pseudo-hierarchy.

And 95% of the priests were Arians during the Arian debacle.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:40:49 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Quote from: curiouscatholic23
Quote from: Roman Catholic
The longest prior period of sede vacante that I can recall off the top of my head from my reading of Church History was more than 3 but less than 4 years.

The principle is established that the Church continues in a period of sedevacante.

If there can be a vacancy of 3 years why not 5? If 5 why not 10? If 10 why not 20? Etc.

good point, I've never looked at that way. It just seems extraordinary that we could go this long, and literally have over 95% of self professed catholics fall under the claws of this Vatican II sect and pseudo-hierarchy.

And 95% of the priests were Arians during the Arian debacle.

excellent insight partyisover.

s2srea · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2011, 11:01:16 PM »

Have you ever considered a sede only (Bellarmine?) forum CC?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2011, 11:03:41 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Have you ever considered a sede only (Bellarmine?) forum CC?

Why; does cc's presence here bother you? If so, have you ever considered a forum that has only your type of views represented?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2011, 02:15:52 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

The longest prior period of sede vacante that I can recall off the top of my head from my reading of Church History was more than 3 but less than 4 years.

The principle is established that the Church continues in a period of sedevacante.

If there can be a vacancy of 3 years why not 5? If 5 why not 10? If 10 why not 20? Etc.

If 20, why a pope at all?

There has to be a perpetual successor, and if not, the word "perpetual" would be devoid of any meaning.
This, together with the indefectibility of the hierarchy, is one of the major problems of the sedevacantist thesis.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2011, 04:22:13 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Roman Catholic
The longest prior period of sede vacante that I can recall off the top of my head from my reading of Church History was more than 3 but less than 4 years.

The principle is established that the Church continues in a period of sedevacante.

If there can be a vacancy of 3 years why not 5? If 5 why not 10? If 10 why not 20? Etc.

If 20, why a pope at all?

There has to be a perpetual successor, and if not, the word "perpetual" would be devoid of any meaning.
This, together with the indefectibility of the hierarchy, is one of the major problems of the sedevacantist thesis.

Well, I will not fault you, since you are in a neo-Catholic mindset here regarding the Vatican I statement of "Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church." This definition from the Declaration of Ecuмenical Council Vatican I (1870) is what you are basing your belief on right? Because that's pretty much where it is in all of Church docuмents for all of Church history.

I will fault you though for assuming that an interregnum has a specific time limit on it. For we are all technically "sedevacantists" in your viewpoint when a Pope dies and we await the election of the next one. But in reality, sedevacantists are Catholic, Pyrrhos. For a man of your intellect and experience, I would hope you see this and profess it. We cannot be "doubting Thomases" in the face of something that is incredible and painful for Catholics to live through. Shaking our heads in disbelief and continuing to tell ourselves "this can't be, it just can't be" with no basis is not Faith. It is dishonest. We must just keep the Faith alive, undefiled and pure.

A read on this very "apologetic bulletpoint" you attack sedevacantism on:

These are 2 letters from Fr. Stepanich:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=44&catname=10

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2011, 04:48:10 AM »

Dear PiO!

Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, my intellect and experience is not as great as you might think.

In my experience, "neo-Catholics" have a more Catholic mindset than traditionalists who are led astray by a great number of errors.
Of course, it does not matter "how many times" something appeared in Church history, as we have to believe every teaching, may it be new or old (otherwise, we would be old Catholics).

Indeed, we must keep the faith alive and pure. But, after all, the Church is a visible institution.
Without a Church hierarchy, the Church will lose its Apostolicity. If the Church is no longer apostolic, she would no longer be Catholic. And if the Church is not able to provide another Pontiff, as the Roman clergy and remaining members of the hierarchy are extinct (soon) - she has not prevailed against the gates of hell.

An answer to these objections has not yet been given by sedevacantists besides the Cassiciacuм thesis or saying that there "some bishops out there with ordinary jurisdiction".

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2011, 09:10:16 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

There was never a "vacancy" prior to Vatican II.

Actually there were a few vacancies that lasted longer than what was considered to be the normal period of sedevacante in between popes.

One time the faithful opened up the roof of the building to the elements where the conclave was, in an effort to spur the electors on to a result.

A reading of the history of the popes would provide the details.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2011, 09:11:08 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: s2srea
Have you ever considered a sede only (Bellarmine?) forum CC?

Why; does cc's presence here bother you? If so, have you ever considered a forum that has only your type of views represented?

His presence here does not bother me because his views are different RC; being even vaguely familiar with my posts would show you that. But now that he's taken it upon himself to give advice to people asking for advice, as in the other thread, when he himself is, according to him, not under the guidance of a priest but the internet, that is what bothers me. He is someone who comes on here to ask countless questions, yet seems to ignore anything explained to him.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2011, 09:13:14 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: s2srea
Have you ever considered a sede only (Bellarmine?) forum CC?

Why; does cc's presence here bother you? If so, have you ever considered a forum that has only your type of views represented?

His presence here does not bother me because his views are different RC; being even vaguely familiar with my posts would show you that. But now that he's taken it upon himself to give advice to people asking for advice, as in the other thread, when he himself is, according to him, not under the guidance of a priest but the internet, is what bothers me. He is someonw who comes on here to ask countless questions, yet seems to ignore anything explained to him.

Ah, I understand your reasons for the comment now, but why would a sede-only forum be solution for him/her?