Where can sedevecantism go. Sedeprivation allows room for the conversion/ return to the fullness of the papacy for the current successors. But what is the answer for sedevecantists?

I understand/ have heard that there is no need for sede's to have the answer. But what could it be?

Right now, it simply seems dead end; and that, to me, is contrary to Vatican I's promise of perpetual successors. Just curious what most sede's think.

There is the possibility that we may see a choir of angels putting the Tiara on the new Pope accompanied with a second sun miracle.

And Pegasus does exist.

 

S2S,

The "where do we go from here" question is not the question you should be asking.  Hear me out.

Whether sedevacantist or not, all traditionalists are dealing with the same problem: non-Catholic heretics are pretending to hold authority in the Catholic Church.  They have stolen the buildings and physical institutions, and in her name, imposed non-Catholic liturgies, laws and teachings.  

Whether you are sedevacantist or not, this is the reality you're dealing with.

Now, before a solution can be proposed, the problem must be properly identified.  If a man is sick, he must be diagnosed before he can be treated.  Sedevacantism is not a solution, it is a diagnosis to the problem I just mentioned, a problem that is experienced whether you are a sedevacantist or not.  The sedevacantists say that the proper diagnosis is that the Church is in a period of interregnum.  That is the cause of the sickness, or at least the efficient cause of it.

To borrow from JS Daly's "The Impossible Crisis," if you have a tumorous lump, you need to know if you have cancer.  Whether or not you have, at your disposal, all the tools to deal with the cancer is completely immaterial to the fact of whether or not you have cancer.  And you need to know if you have cancer, because at the very least it is a significant truth which will determine how you behave, act and proceed.

And finally, Catholics never "go anywhere."  Don't worry about progress.  God has a divine plan that provides for us, and especially that provides for the Church.  The Church is in His hands, and He will restore it the moment He wills to, and the moment He has planned to from all eternity.

S2S,

The "where do we go from here" question is not the question you should be asking.  Hear me out.

Whether sedevacantist or not, all traditionalists are dealing with the same problem: non-Catholic heretics are pretending to hold authority in the Catholic Church.  They have stolen the buildings and physical institutions, and in her name, imposed non-Catholic liturgies, laws and teachings.  

Whether you are sedevacantist or not, this is the reality you're dealing with.

Now, before a solution can be proposed, the problem must be properly identified.  If a man is sick, he must be diagnosed before he can be treated.  Sedevacantism is not a solution, it is a diagnosis to the problem I just mentioned, a problem that is experienced whether you are a sedevacantist or not.  The sedevacantists say that the proper diagnosis is that the Church is in a period of interregnum.  That is the cause of the sickness, or at least the efficient cause of it.

To borrow from JS Daly's "The Impossible Crisis," if you have a tumorous lump, you need to know if you have cancer.  Whether or not you have, at your disposal, all the tools to deal with the cancer is completely immaterial to the fact of whether or not you have cancer.  And you need to know if you have cancer, because at the very least it is a significant truth which will determine how you behave, act and proceed.

And finally, Catholics never "go anywhere."  Don't worry about progress.  God has a divine plan that provides for us, and especially that provides for the Church.  The Church is in His hands, and He will restore it the moment He wills to, and the moment He has planned to from all eternity.

Good assessment.  We have diagnosed the problem.  I like to think the solution is in God's and our (or at least the clergy's) hands.  

I believe an imperfect council can be formed to set up a conclave.  Others will disagree.  But it cannot be denied that the root cause of the problem has been diagnosed.  

We cannot harvest a new Pope from a false religion.  It has to come from within.  Perhaps God will point him out to us but He always seems to have a plan which involves our cooperation.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Mithrandylan

S2S,

The "where do we go from here" question is not the question you should be asking.  Hear me out.

Whether sedevacantist or not, all traditionalists are dealing with the same problem: non-Catholic heretics are pretending to hold authority in the Catholic Church.  They have stolen the buildings and physical institutions, and in her name, imposed non-Catholic liturgies, laws and teachings.  

Whether you are sedevacantist or not, this is the reality you're dealing with.

Now, before a solution can be proposed, the problem must be properly identified.  If a man is sick, he must be diagnosed before he can be treated.  Sedevacantism is not a solution, it is a diagnosis to the problem I just mentioned, a problem that is experienced whether you are a sedevacantist or not.  The sedevacantists say that the proper diagnosis is that the Church is in a period of interregnum.  That is the cause of the sickness, or at least the efficient cause of it.

To borrow from JS Daly's "The Impossible Crisis," if you have a tumorous lump, you need to know if you have cancer.  Whether or not you have, at your disposal, all the tools to deal with the cancer is completely immaterial to the fact of whether or not you have cancer.  And you need to know if you have cancer, because at the very least it is a significant truth which will determine how you behave, act and proceed.

And finally, Catholics never "go anywhere."  Don't worry about progress.  God has a divine plan that provides for us, and especially that provides for the Church.  The Church is in His hands, and He will restore it the moment He wills to, and the moment He has planned to from all eternity.

Good assessment.  We have diagnosed the problem.  I like to think the solution is in God's and our (or at least the clergy's) hands.  

I believe an imperfect council can be formed to set up a conclave. Others will disagree.  But it cannot be denied that the root cause of the problem has been diagnosed.  

We cannot harvest a new Pope from a false religion.  It has to come from within.  Perhaps God will point him out to us but He always seems to have a plan which involves our cooperation.  

I don't think you will find any who disagree with the concept of an imperfect Council.  The point of disagreement is that those who are not members of the hierarchy or the Roman Clergy cannot take part in it, except perhaps as advisors.

If the traditional bishops somehow get past their problems and then decide to unilaterally hold a Council to elect a Pope, it will be a schismatic act that produces another Antipope.  I for one will have nothing to do with another fake Pope or the schismatics who elect him.  

The lawful hierarchy can never fail, and there are still to this day members on earth, and the same goes for the clergy of Rome.  When they act, by the grace of God, there will be a true and undeniable Pope again.  

If you are right.  God bless you for defending the truth.  If you are wrong.  God bless you for defending what you believe to be true.

I believe just as during the GWS we have valid Bishops who did not have an explicit mandate.  I believe these same bishops have jurisdiction over their flock (provided, of course, that they are not publicly schismatic, heretical and or apostate).  I also admit that I lack the credentials to speak with any weight on the topic and that generally speaking you are significantly more knowledgeable than I in all things Catholic.

You wrote:

Yes, tacit approval of the Pope is also legitimate.  This can be found in the early Church or in the numerous diocesan bishops cited by Bp. Pivarunas
during interregnums.  If the lawful priests of a diocese acclaimed a certain
bishop as their lawful bishop during a lengthy interregnum, such an act
would appear to fulfill the requirements of a tacit approval of the Pope,
and would be supplied by the Church.  Archbishop Lefebvre understood
this principle clearly (See letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bp. Castro de
Mayer http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31464)

A response to this which is not authored by me would be as follows:

Kind of hard to argue with history, isn't it?  Abp. Lefebvre is merely explaining that the process is easier to explain for the Diocese of Campos than for the SSPX, and that he preferred that the two be kept separate, though they are both brother bishops fighting side by side in the same cause.  See here the key practical aspects of the difference between a bishop being sent by the Church versus one who is not.  If a bishop who is not sent from the Church just gets his consecration from wherever, and then tries to go forth saying "You must obey me; I'm a Catholic bishop!" of course the Catholic Faithful say "Why should we listen to you?  The Church never sent you."  This is exactly what Dom
Gueranger was talking about when he said " If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers."

But consider just how markedly that differs from the scenario of a flock of the Church (including some priests) desirous of having a bishop among them, there being a man chosen from their priests, with the clear consent of his fellow priests and the Faithful of said flock (at least in general, as some few individuals among the Faithful might well prefer a different candidate), and the priest is made a bishop and set as such over this particular flock.  Such is of course the story of couple dozen or so dioceses that fell vacant back in the 1200's, and also of Campos during our current crisis.
 
This is also the story of our other traditional societies as well,  For in each case, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI, Trento Priests in Mexico, and numerous other communities of the Catholic diaspora scattered all throughout the earth as so few of us have actually kept the Faith, you once again have legitimate flocks of Catholics, at first dependent upon various "independent" priests who had been given legitimate assignments as priests by the Church over parishes and other communities, but who were ousted by the modernists as a punishment for keeping faithful to the Faith of their ordination (a step taken by them of no real Catholic authority), and who were tending these unquestionably legitimate Catholic Faithful.  Then one or another of these priests is elevated to the
Episcopacy, as chosen and recommended by his fellow priests of the same of similar flock(s) and by the ranks of the Faithful themselves for whom the man goes on to serve as their Bishop.
 
Now, if one wanted to argue that leadership of a traditional Catholic society is not a "Diocesan See" in some sense, that claim is not really relevant.  A Diocesan See is, after all merely one form that a legitimate flock of Holy Mother Church can take, and admittedly by far the most common.  But particular religious orders are also flocks, as would be such a thing as any "Society of Pontifical Right," or the people in any sort of "missionary territory" and the like.  A traditional bishop today does not claim any actual "See" from among any of the historical Sees of the Church, but such a leadership position over a group of members of the Faithful really does constitute a "See" in practically every sense, and the bishops for these "Sees" are no less real bishops than the former bishops of all the classical Sees, or of the various religious orders.
 
So now, the only ingredient needed is the approval of the Pope.  During that other lengthy papal vacancy so very long ago, this was achieved by having approved bishops taking a very active part in the process of selecting, approving, and consecrating the men so chosen.  Their communion with the vacant papal chair (as evidenced by their approval and communion with the previous pope when he was still alive) shows that who they in turn approve also has (indirectly, through them) the tacit approval of the pope as well, even though there wasn't one at the time.  So it is again with our traditional
bishops.  Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre and Bps. de Castro-Meyer and Mendez were one and all approved bishops by the Pope.  As they are the only ones to have (a) retained the Catholic Faith, and (b) provided for the future of the Church through a succession, their approval conveys the same indirect tacit papal approval as did those bishops of old who did likewise.  So in short, all the dogmatic criteria needed in order for the traditional bishops to possess the same legitimacy and formal Apostolic succession of those who are truly sent by the Church are indeed held by them.