Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31

Author Topic: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:  (Read 9088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2020, 09:20:31 AM »
Most sedevacantists don't see the Church being restored by some 100-year-old bishop appointed by Pius XII or John XXIII. You'll get various different explanations on this, but some believe that the Novus Ordo clergy of Rome could repent and profess the Faith, and they would have the right to elect a pope. Or a Novus Ordo cardinal could do the same thing, or several cardinals, and they would have the power to elect a pope. Or Jorge Bergoglio could repent (or some successor of his) and the whole church would accept him as pope, in which case he would be pope by acclamation, which is one of the ways a pope can be elected.
.
The idea you describe here, where there is some sort of deadline that is rapidly approaching, after which it will be impossible to elect a pope, is simply not part of sedevacantist theory, nor do sedes believe in anything like that.
.
Xav, you really should spend more time talking to sedevacantists and actually asking them what they believe. The Bellarmine Forums of John Lane aren't functioning anymore, but the old threads are all still there, and ideas like this get discussed there at great length. If you really want to learn what sedes actually believe, I'd look there: http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewforum.php?f=2
Logged

Offline jerm

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2020, 03:14:39 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on May 24, 2020, 09:20:31 AM
Most sedevacantists don't see the Church being restored by some 100-year-old bishop appointed by Pius XII or John XXIII. You'll get various different explanations on this, but some believe that the Novus Ordo clergy of Rome could repent and profess the Faith, and they would have the right to elect a pope. Or a Novus Ordo cardinal could do the same thing, or several cardinals, and they would have the power to elect a pope. Or Jorge Bergoglio could repent (or some successor of his) and the whole church would accept him as pope, in which case he would be pope by acclamation, which is one of the ways a pope can be elected.
.
The idea you describe here, where there is some sort of deadline that is rapidly approaching, after which it will be impossible to elect a pope, is simply not part of sedevacantist theory, nor do sedes believe in anything like that.
.
Xav, you really should spend more time talking to sedevacantists and actually asking them what they believe. The Bellarmine Forums of John Lane aren't functioning anymore, but the old threads are all still there, and ideas like this get discussed there at great length. If you really want to learn what sedes actually believe, I'd look there: http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewforum.php?f=2
As happens with a lot of conversations on sedevacantism, there's an element of speaking past one another. Many sedevacantists think that their position is spotless, and when others object to it, they simply aren't engaging the position. Xav isn't doing that, however. He's saying that the sedevacantist position is inconsistent for not addressing this concern. Just because sedevacantists haven't addressed it, that does not mean that it's coherent for them not to. It's possible to hold to a position that is incoherent, but not to know that it's incoherent. When you say that most sedevacantists disagree with Xav's idea here, you would need to defend that as a possibility. Just stating the opinion doesn't make it viable.
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2020, 04:51:40 PM »
Quote from: jerm on May 24, 2020, 03:14:39 PM
As happens with a lot of conversations on sedevacantism, there's an element of speaking past one another. Many sedevacantists think that their position is spotless, and when others object to it, they simply aren't engaging the position. Xav isn't doing that, however. He's saying that the sedevacantist position is inconsistent for not addressing this concern. Just because sedevacantists haven't addressed it, that does not mean that it's coherent for them not to. It's possible to hold to a position that is incoherent, but not to know that it's incoherent. When you say that most sedevacantists disagree with Xav's idea here, you would need to defend that as a possibility. Just stating the opinion doesn't make it viable.
Yes, 62+years SVism runs into two problems here. First, you need Bishops with Jurisdiction to pass the alleged sentence that the supposed Pope-heretic has lost his office, before a new Pope is elected. But the sedes, since they waited 62 years to do it, have no Jurisdictional Bishops left. That is one part of the problem. The other problem is doctrinal. It cannot happen that there are no more Papally appointed Bishops, diocesan Ordinaries in other words. Yet that is exactly where 62 year sede-vacantism leads to. Hence, it is doctrinally incorrect and cannot be the true explanation.

Yeti, I've read the two prominent sedevacantist explanations for it, and both are lacking. One is that it allegedly can happen that there are no Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction in the Church. That is contradicted by the Vatican I statement that there will be Shepherds and Teachers in the Church until the end of time. The other that even heretical non-Popes can appoint Bishops to office. That is contradicted by cuŠ¼ Ex, which says all such would lack all authority.

Struthio, are you saying you will re-think your asssessment about sedevacantism? When? In 2035? If someone really believed in SVism, he should be doing all he can aimed at gathering those Bishops appointed by Pope John XXIII in a Council, and trying to elect a new Pope. He should be striving to do this quickly before time runs out.

By reductio ad absurdum, all Catholics can already be fairly certain 62 year svism is not the correct explanation in 3 to 5 to 8 more years, it'll become even more obvious that 65 year SVism etc is not correct.
Logged

Offline Prayerful

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2020, 05:42:54 PM »
Quote from: XavierSem on May 22, 2020, 03:03:10 PM
The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals

This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?

Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.

Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.

Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.

So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.

Thoughts?
A bishop with traditional orders who gives allegiance to a possible anti-Pope like Paul VI is still a bishop. 1958 or 1960 makes no sense as a cut off. Constitutional clergy in France were afterwards accepted. Valid orders with no Papal allegiance. The Pauline Ordinal is surely the point of possible rupture.
Logged

Offline Struthio

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2020, 07:27:49 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on May 24, 2020, 04:51:40 PM
Struthio, are you saying you will re-think your asssessment about sedevacantism? When? In 2035? If someone really believed in SVism, he should be doing all he can aimed at gathering those Bishops appointed by Pope John XXIII in a Council, and trying to elect a new Pope. He should be striving to do this quickly before time runs out.

By reductio ad absurdum, all Catholics can already be fairly certain 62 year svism is not the correct explanation in 3 to 5 to 8 more years, it'll become even more obvious that 65 year SVism etc is not correct.

As I said, I don't believe that the term sede vacante describes correctly what we have. Sede vacante is a regular and frequent situation. What we witness is a different thing. Seats are not vacant, but rather usurped by false, antichrist, antibishops which adhere to a Robber Council that has abrogated the First Commandment by introducing previously condemned Religious Liberty.

I don't think I will ever have to rethink this assessment with respect to sede vacante. Also, I don't think, I will ever have to rethink my assessment that the Robber Council is an abomination, the new mass is an abomination, and this whole new religion of the "new Pentecost" is abomination.

Quote from: Matth 24
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. [15] When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.  [...] [34] Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

I think that verse 15 gives us "[3] ...the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world", and that the generation of witnesses of the abomination (aprox. 1965) shall not pass. Now, when that generation has passed, I'll have to rethink this interpretation, and maybe the whole situation.

But:

1.) These "Bishops", you talk about, didn't speak out against the abomination but rather are part of it. They manifestly are part of the false new religion. Why gather a bunch of heretics? To found another false religion?

2.) False ideas about what the true situation of the Church is do not turn concilar Heresy into true Faith. If my assessment or the assessment of sedevacantist is wrong, then the Council and the false Relgion usurping all holy places still are an abomination.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31
« previous next »