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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10

Author Topic: Sedevacantism and Vatican I  (Read 2252 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2026, 05:58:33 PM »
Quote from: IllyricuмSacrum on July 09, 2026, 05:17:04 PM
Perpetual. Not continuous.

Right ... and the very fact that we do have regular vacancies of the Holy See should suffice for someone to consider that "perpetual" may not mean what he thinks it might on the surface, and to investigate further.
Logged

Offline Incredulous

Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2026, 12:37:04 AM »


Is the term "sedevacantist" a noun that was coined in the 20th Century or does it have a longer history in Catholic dictionaries?
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2026, 07:49:09 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on July 09, 2026, 05:52:35 AM
It DOES NOT answer the question. I don't care either way, all I want is a clear answer to a clear question - it is you who does not like the question so you keep referring me to Fr. Oreilly's opinion. If you do not know the answer, simply say that.

I do not know what you think he is saying, but one thing he is not answering is my question, he does not answer how long of an interregnum before the perpetual succession is broken. Nor does he mention anything about how many false successors can be elected until we can presume to pronounce without anathema that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter.

I do not know what you think he says, but this is what he says.....He is saying ("suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here") is that the GWS, something nobody thought could happen, lasted between 30 and 40 years and was when pretty much nobody knew who the real pope was.

That's all he is saying.

Here he says it could happen again, and he concludes ("what I would infer")  that we should not presume "to pronounce on what God may permit", and that like during the GWS, God will supply all necessary graces to save our souls as He did during the GWS.

How does this answer the OP regarding the issue of the divine law of perpetual successors from V1?  - It doesn't.


Firstly, read my initial post in this thread, it answered the OP’s question.

Secondly, I really don’t understand how you can’t deduce the answer to your question from what he wrote. Here is my answer mirroring Father O’Reilly’s words: 

I don’t know what God has in store for us. We can’t limit what God has in store for us. I don’t know how long an interregnum can last and I certainly can’t figure out God’s incomprehensible ways. Don’t put a limit on what God can and could do!

That is the answer, but you don’t like it because it doesn’t fit into your unorthodox beliefs on the Church and the papacy. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2026, 11:50:34 AM »
So, the onus is on those who claim that 67 years is "too long".  I actually think it's less, since I hold that Siri was legitimate Pope ... until his death in 1989.

But if you claim 67 years is too long, then you have to provide numberr.  Is 50 years too long, 20, 10 ... or how about 7 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours 15 minutes and 25.7 seconds?

There's no way to really do that.  You'd have t come up with some alternative criterion than time, which is arbitrary, where in one sense 3 years or 50 years make no difference.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2026, 02:18:41 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 11, 2026, 07:49:09 AM

Firstly, read my initial post in this thread, it answered the OP’s question.

Secondly, I really don’t understand how you can’t deduce the answer to your question from what he wrote. Here is my answer mirroring Father O’Reilly’s words:

I don’t know what God has in store for us. We can’t limit what God has in store for us. I don’t know how long an interregnum can last and I certainly can’t figure out God’s incomprehensible ways. Don’t put a limit on what God can and could do!

That is the answer, but you don’t like it because it doesn’t fit into your unorthodox beliefs on the Church and the papacy. 
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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
« previous next »