Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?  (Read 1438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1808
  • Reputation: +1153/-533
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
« Reply #90 on: July 30, 2020, 10:08:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I know you think you have arguments showing all Ordinaries can defect. The issue is that it's contrary to Vatican I, and a statement in the Oath Against Modernism. How do you explain those two sources, Clemens Maria?

    I'm not sure what you are referring to in the Oath Against Modernism.  Maybe this?

    "Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time."

    Or this?

    "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles."

    See the parallels between the Successor of Peter and the Successors of the Apostles?  In fact, Van Noort says that we don't scruple about finding the exact line of succession for each and every bishop.  The way that we know they are Successors of the Apostles is that they are in communion with the pope, the Successor of Peter.  So Apostolic Succession is dependent on the the Succession of Peter, not the other way around.  We have been over this before.  But you refuse to even consider the argument.  You go around in circles until you come back to your original argument.  It's tedious.

    Needless to say, the Succession of Peter does not end with the death of the pope.  We have sede vacantes and yet we don't worry that the See of Rome has defected.  If the See of Rome has not defected then neither has the Church defected.  But the See of Rome doesn't defect during a sede vacante.

    Also consider that phrases such as "duration of time", "until the end of time", "until the consummation", etc don't imply that there is guaranteed to be a pope reigning at the moment the world comes to an end.  The world could very well end during a sede vacante without ever violating any of Our Lord's promises to his faithful.

    I'll point out again (for the 20th time maybe?) that Van Noort and other theologians speculated about nuclear wars wiping out the entire world.  But he insisted as did Msgr Fenton that the Local Church of Rome would never defect.  So conceivably every other see can defect at the same time but the Roman See will not defect.  This despite the fact that there are sede vacantes from time to time of the Roman See.  So obviously they did not think the existence of the Roman See was dependent upon another ordinary somewhere in the world.

    We see similar parallels in the Vatican I document:

    "SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

    3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

    4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation."

    "Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

    1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time."

    And note that this is very prejudicial against the R&R position:

    "Chapter 4

    The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."

    And yet the SSPX has saw fit to question this teaching by second-guessing the teaching of the purported pontiff.

    You need a statement like, "All Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can defect, so long as some vagrant clerics without jurisdiction remain". Do you have anything like that? I don't think you'll find a statement to that effect.

    Oh, really?  And you don't need a statement that says the existence of the Roman See is dependent on the existence of at least one ordinary somewhere in the world?

    The home aloners who make the jurisdiction argument are taking 60 year sedevacantism to its logical conclusion. They are pointing out there are no authorized sede Priests or authorized sede Bishops since there was no Pope to authorize them.

    I posted earlier 2 articles by different authors who have pointed out that the ɛƖɛctıon of a pope does not require the cardinals in some scenarios.  And neither does it require ordinaries.  At one time the local clergy of Rome really did elect their own bishop.  And obviously none of them were ordinaries.

    There are two things I do consider heretical, with good reasons from dogmatic sources: (1) Saying the entire hierarchy can defect (2) Saying an indefinite vacancy is possible. When someone claims something is heresy, he must show the dogma that it opposes. What dogma does (1) oppose? Aposotolicity. What dogma does (2) oppose? St. Peter's Perpetual Successors, defined at Vatican I.

    There you go again, not listening.  I just pointed out earlier in the thread that the hierarchy consists of all clerics.  And you continue to use the word hierarchy to mean solely the ordinaries.  Also, every sede vacante is indefinite.  There is no time limit on a sede vacante.  The cardinals have never had a deadline by which they absolutely had to elect the next pope.

    I hold only the Ordinaries can pass judgment that the Pope has lost office, as also Fr. Suarez said. So what efforts are sedevacantists making to assemble the Ordinaries (or even non-Ordinaries if you insist) in a General Council to do so?

    According to St Robert Bellarmine, a manifest heretic is already judged.  If it was something that needed to be judged in a court by competent authority, it would be impossible to make such a judgment because the pope cannot be judged.  Either the V2 popes are obviously guilty of heresy/apostasy or they are not guilty at all.  A large number of well-informed Catholics see that the Conciliar popes are not Catholic at all.  And those who don't think the popes are heretics are lost in contradiction.

    As far as what the sedes are doing with regard to a general council, I don't know.  I've heard there have been some discussions among various clergy but I have no idea what might be happening in the future.  I don't know what I can do to help other than to fast and pray.

    Offline Argentino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 177
    • Reputation: +68/-62
    • Gender: Male
    • Fighting the good fight.
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #91 on: July 31, 2020, 09:17:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, documenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible.

    I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

    With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

    This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

    No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.

    To accept the ostensible claimants from the Vatican since Paul VI as true popes is out of the question. I know who are NOT popes, but I don't know if there is a true pope in a dungeon somewhere.Trust in the Church. Whichever you like to believe, either there is no true pope for a certain amount of time OR there is a pope we don't know about locked up out of site. But, again, I know who are NOT true popes.

    I already answered in a previous comment that bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are not essential for electing a pope.

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1415
    • Reputation: +375/-274
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #92 on: July 31, 2020, 09:36:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Struthio
    DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols). One doesn't even need the ex cathedra condemnation of Quanta Cura to see that that's a false gospel. The Church never teaches anything against common sense.

    I've debated this topic with several Novus Ordites for years, and they presented quite some literature. All desperate attempts to show that what must not be, cannot be.

    Common sense is one of the first things to go.

    Ironically, that's quite common.

    Yes, I should say "sound reasoning" instead of "common sense".
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16