You tell us that you don't know how long an interregnum can last - that's fine, thank you. Now, if you have the patience, I will attempt to explain as thoroughly and as clearly as I can.......
Per V1, which declares both:
1) it is anathema to say it is not divine law that there should be perpetual successors. Hence, perpetual successors is divine law, ergo, there absolutely, positively *will* be perpetual successors.
2) it is anathema to say the pope, in this case Leo XIV, is not the pope, the "successor of blessed Peter."
Again, this is per V1.
Here is V1 again for reference:
"If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
So insisting that popes are not popes is declared anathema by V1, that is clearly what V1not me, says. Please note that V1 teaches this without any regard whatsoever to all the theological arguments to the contrary. So this I believe verbatim because V1 taught it, this is not unorthodox.
This means saying successive popes are not popes is not only anathema, it also means that doing so breaks perpetual succession, which idea is also anathema. I also believe this verbatim because V1 taught it, this is not unorthodox.
So please let me know precisely where I am unorthodox in my belief, because all I am doing is repeating V1 verbatim and like V1, without any regard whatsoever to the current crisis. Therefore, I am not inserting my opinion, nor am I changing the meaning under the pretext of a more profound understanding. This is not unorthodox.
Ok, now I mean no disrespect, I am just calling this for what it is........it is apparent that what you are doing, is saying that you believe V1 but that V1 does not apply in this crisis, hence, *as I see it,* you decide to make V1 meaningless in order to keep the sede opinion to be true. So I'm not the one with unorthodox beliefs because I believe and have only repeated verbatim the teaching of V1.
Until this recent crisis, the longest interregnum was around 3 years. Echoing Ladislaus, please provide us with a time frame that you believe is too long? Is 5 years too long? Is 15 years too long? Is 50 years too long? Is a 100 years too long? Also, please give a reference to support your time constraint.
As IllyricuмSacrum said in the above post, perpetual is not synonymous with continuous.
Topic: Sedevacantism and Vatican I (Read 2258 times)