Author Topic: Thoughts on a New "Super-Conclave" (Read 1521 times)

conclavist · « **on:** February 20, 2015, 05:08:20 AM »

I proposed the idea to pope Michael that he step down and have the other conclavist claimants step down and to organize a new conclave with the sedes, SSPX, anyone willing. He mentioned that someone tried to do this after the demise of the "Pius XIII" conclave (side note: they're set to hold a new election in 2017, potentially) and it didn't really work out, but that he didn't use the internet's full potential.

I suggested that maybe a goal could be set to hold a new "super-conclave" within 5 years. If need be, it could take 10-25 years to iron out differences and so on. However, we would then at least have a "more certain" and "successful" conclave that everyone has worked towards in a time frame and had the opportunity to work through disagreements. I suggested that politically this might be easier than twisting arms to get everyone under PM's small conclave, even though I don't at present see substantial objection to it (however I continue to research).

I was wondering what sedes think of this idea, and maybe if anyone in the SSPX is thinking this might be a good idea given how much more radical Francis and the V2 "popes" have been. Bp. George Musey wrote to Abp. Lefebvre about holding a papal election and there were talks within the SSPX about electing a pope: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77235819/An-Open-Letter-to-Archbishop-Lefebvre-by-Bishop-George-Musey-November-1983

Questions about who the electors are to be, lifting of excommunications, where and how the election will be held, etc. could be arranged within the timeframe set. This was kind of my original thought when I was contacting PM, about a new conclave, because others stated his conclave was obviously invalid. However, my effort stopped when I found certain objections didn't stand. Yet, here I am proposing the idea as it might promote unity and be politically useful for more definitively ending the Vatican 2 crisis in the minds of "traditionalists".

When I originally found sedevacantism, I was coming direct from the novus ordo, and I was only sede vacantist in that I didn't think that Benedict XVI was pope at the time. I figured that "someone was the leader" or that if there wasn't a leader, there was an effort towards electing one. Every company has its CEO, every government has its President or Monarch. The Church has a pope, and so I think that this issue needs to be more seriously looked at and considered, especially now that we have the internet which can make organizing a conclave much easier.

Thoughts? Again, a reminder to be charitable and thank you in advance for any feedback!

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2015, 05:18:53 AM »

I think that sedevacantism is a lie.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2015, 05:54:22 AM »

Quote from: poche

I think that sedevacantism is a lie.

You support Bawden's papacy then?

You've made it clear that you think it's a lie to say anything is wrong and not holy about the V2 popes, so your opinion doesn't matter much.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2015, 06:51:59 AM »

Even wit Pope Francis at the helm and disaster in the Novus ordo everywhere one looks, this whole conclave business would be a very dangerous excursion for any Catholic. A secular man, with no religious upbringing searching for Our Lord who finds himself involved with this Conclavism business would be somewhat excusable but a Catholic with minimum understanding of the Catechism would be acting in extreme danger.

poche · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2015, 11:25:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: poche
I think that sedevacantism is a lie.

You support Bawden's papacy then?

You've made it clear that you think it's a lie to say anything is wrong and not holy about the V2 popes, so your opinion doesn't matter much.

No, I do not support Bawden's "papacy." I have never said that constructive criticism with respect to theHoly Father is wrong. However I think he (Pope Francis) is often quoted out of context by people who should know better.

conclavist · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2015, 07:21:50 AM »

Capt McQuigg: Why? Also, we are presuming the sede position for this consideration, which it does not look like you also do. For the sake of argument, do you think that a conclave would be the solution if there was a vacancy of the Holy See? This was the normal solution to all previous vacancies. I think that things like sedeprivationism and other ideas are false solutions to divert Catholics from the normal solution of a conclave.

Even presuming PM's conclave was valid, given the confusion today, I thought maybe a new run-off election could promote unity and certainty.

Food for thought, maybe related:
""There are two instances in which the cardinals may call a council without permission of the Pope. The first is when it is doubtful as to who the rightful Pope should be; and the second, when the Pope should notoriously lapse into heresy. In the first instance, we are guided by the principle 'a doubtful pope is no pope'; in the second, the council will be called to declare what is already an established fact, for the manifestly heretical pope deprives himself of office without needing the decision of the Church." -- St. Alphonsus Ligouri"
From: Who Are The Sedevacantists?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Oct/oct13tra.htm

Wherefore, if the Universal Church ever secedes from a Pon- tiff, that very fact constitutes an infallible sign, according to what had been stated earlier, not that he who had once been Pope has now been deprived of his power by virtue of that defection, but that he had never been a true and legitimate Pontiff, since Christ, faithful in his promises, would not be able to permit that the entire Church adhere to a false Pontiff or reject a true one.
From: Pope Sifting - Difficulties with Sedevacantism
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sifting.htm

One problem with this last quote is that no real time frame is given, so if everyone started recognizing PM as pope, in theory it seems this could "convalidate" him, even if his election was invalid, ceteris paribus (all else equal).

Quasimodo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2015, 08:44:44 AM »

There will be another conclave as soon as Francis steps down.
Conclavist, you seem delusional. Does this type of conclave you talk about really strike you as legitimately Catholic? It strikes me as child's play. You sound sincere but you are putting yourself in danger.
At this point I'm on the fence about sedevacantism. I think Francis may well not be pope. If I were absolutely sure I couldn't bring myself to be part of this delusional conclavism. I can't bet my soul on playing pretend. It all sounds so prideful.
I'm sure you see your arguments as internally consistent. Even if it all fits, makes sense and is coherent, that doesn't mean it is true. There is a flaw somewhere that you missed. I hope you find it.

Tridentine MT · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2015, 04:00:15 PM »

Archbishop Lefebvre was wise and a real Catholic when he rejected the idea of being elected as Pope.

His was the most consistent position - I stick with that.