Author Topic: Sedevacantism and Vatican I (Read 670 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #15 on:** **Today** at 08:11:36 AM »

Quote from: Bonafidecat on July 07, 2026, 05:14:12 PM

Maybe this has been addressed already, but how does the sede explain this from VI, the reference to "perpetual successors"?

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Therefore,
[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]if anyone says that
[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]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[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]let him be anathema.[/color]

Quo posted something from Fr. O'Reilly musing about not putting limitations upon what God can and may do, with a recognition, in principle, that a vacancy such as we have witnessed is not beyond possibility. But that's not an explanation for what has happened; it is merely an acknowledgment that something like what has happened could happen.

You happen to be on a forum where a hypothesis has been advanced that is credible, and well-supported by quotations of Scripture and the Fathers. It's not a light read. I am unaware of anything anywhere else, not in any written form, not on any other Catholic site, forum or blog, that presents a similar analysis at all, and certainly not in its depth and focus. Here's the link:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/

The originator of the thread is gone, unfortunately, and is incommunicado. I had some brief exchanges with him after he was banned here, but haven't heard from him in quite some time. This is very unfortunate, as I'm sure he had some more insights in the intervening years. His thought on this was shared by me in a less developed form, and his insights have fed my own, and I've also built upon him, continuing his thread, and adding my own thoughts in some of my posts on other threads.

You will not hear this analysis perhaps anyone else than on this forum. That should not be taken as precluding its legitimacy and insights. None of the saints, fathers, doctors witnessed what we are seeing, an apparent contradiction to Catholic dogmas and doctrines in the Church post-Vatican II. So the lack of other speculation along these lines is not a conclusive and determining judgment against this view. Read the thread, with an open mind.

It presents a coherent, logical explanation that accords with Scripture, the testimony of great Catholic minds and souls looking into a dim and dark future - which we are in the midst of. So, again, the lack of this speculation in other corners prior to this day is not out of the ordinary.

The prophet Daniel said:

Quote

Daniel 12

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time appointed: many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold.

9 And he said: Go, Daniel, because the words are shut up, and sealed until the appointed time. 10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.

As I said, it's not light reading. But I take your query as honest, and if you really seek understanding, there it is.

The gist of it is, we have successors in the papacy, bishops with a true power of jurisdiction, for the Church Age, the age of the spread of the Gospel. Then, we have the Great Apostasy (2 Th. 2), the "consummation of the age." It is the Great Tribulation before Christ's Return, a time when a true pope, and faithful bishops, are gone.

As St. Augustine famously heard, and wrote, 'tolle, lege."

God Bless,

DR

Bonafidecat · « **Reply #16 on:** **Today** at 02:48:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 11:09:57 AM

He wasn't asking a question ... he bolded anathema, with a challenge "how does a sede answer ...".

You're pretty dense if you interpret this as an actual seeking of information.

"How does [...] explain ... ?" with anathema bolded isn't the tone you take if you're asking a question, and "sede" is invariably a derogatory appellation, where someone simply asking a question would use "sedevacantist".

This poster isn't a neophyte, a Trad since 2022, and on this forum for 8 or 9 months now, and has a history of making assertions.

I think that you're posterior-hurt after I denounced your declartion of heresy that justification occurs by faith alone ... and where Baptism isn't a cause but necessary subsequent confirmation.

"This poster isn't a neophyte, a Trad since 2022, and on this forum for 8 or 9 months now, and has a history of making assertions".
Uh, what "assertions"? As for the bold type, that's the way the font pasted when I copied it. I didn't know how to change it.

Bonafidecat · « **Reply #17 on:** **Today** at 02:55:27 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 08:11:36 AM

Quo posted something from Fr. O'Reilly musing about not putting limitations upon what God can and may do, with a recognition, in principle, that a vacancy such as we have witnessed is not beyond possibility. But that's not an explanation for what has happened; it is merely an acknowledgment that something like what has happened could happen.

You happen to be on a forum where a hypothesis has been advanced that is credible, and well-supported by quotations of Scripture and the Fathers. It's not a light read. I am unaware of anything anywhere else, not in any written form, not on any other Catholic site, forum or blog, that presents a similar analysis at all, and certainly not in its depth and focus. Here's the link:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/

The originator of the thread is gone, unfortunately, and is incommunicado. I had some brief exchanges with him after he was banned here, but haven't heard from him in quite some time. This is very unfortunate, as I'm sure he had some more insights in the intervening years. His thought on this was shared by me in a less developed form, and his insights have fed my own, and I've also built upon him, continuing his thread, and adding my own thoughts in some of my posts on other threads.

You will not hear this analysis perhaps anyone else than on this forum. That should not be taken as precluding its legitimacy and insights. None of the saints, fathers, doctors witnessed what we are seeing, an apparent contradiction to Catholic dogmas and doctrines in the Church post-Vatican II. So the lack of other speculation along these lines is not a conclusive and determining judgment against this view. Read the thread, with an open mind.

It presents a coherent, logical explanation that accords with Scripture, the testimony of great Catholic minds and souls looking into a dim and dark future - which we are in the midst of. So, again, the lack of this speculation in other corners prior to this day is not out of the ordinary.

The prophet Daniel said:

As I said, it's not light reading. But I take your query as honest, and if you really seek understanding, there it is.

The gist of it is, we have successors in the papacy, bishops with a true power of jurisdiction, for the Church Age, the age of the spread of the Gospel. Then, we have the Great Apostasy (2 Th. 2), the "consummation of the age." It is the Great Tribulation before Christ's Return, a time when a true pope, and faithful bishops, are gone.

As St. Augustine famously heard, and wrote, 'tolle, lege."

God Bless,

DR

Thank you for the link. It's been saved, and I will read it in it's entirety.

resolution · « **Reply #18 on:** **Today** at 03:47:09 PM »

Quote from: Bonafidecat on July 07, 2026, 05:14:12 PM

Maybe this has been addressed already, but how does the sede explain this from VI, the reference to "perpetual successors"?

Therefore, 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.

Hi, I am a Catholic who holds that the best explanation for the current Crisis in the Church is that the post-conciliar Popes have been public heretics and apostates, who teach already condemned errors and thus already fall under existing condemnations from the Church.

If you want to post quotes without their original formatting, right click and select "match formatting" when pasting then re-size the font into size 2; Or paste the quote first into one of the built-in text file editing software options available as part of your operating system: for macOS textedit, for Windows notepad. Then copy & paste again into Cathinfo and re-size the font to size 2.

In response to your question, Catholics who hold that sede vacante is the best explanation for the current crisis in the Church universally believe in perpetual succession as it is taught by the Church. You will find some writings from pre-vatican II theologians on what perpetual succession actually means, as taught by the Church:

Does a long interregnum interrupt perpetual succession? Fr Raphel Cercia SJ

How do you tell the true Church after a rupture - Journet’s answer

2 weeks or 60 years: Which fits Franzelin's account of sede vacante?

Here are some more recent writings citing the teachings of the Church:

'Totem Pope' - Does the mere election of a pope fulfil Christ’s promises? SD Wright

We shouldn’t be afraid of concluding that the See is vacant: here’s why - MJ McCusker

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Sedevacantism and Vatican I (Read 670 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I

Bonafidecat

Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I

Bonafidecat

Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I

resolution

Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I