Author Topic: Why cant a layman say the chair of Peter is empty? (Read 1747 times)

sedesvacans · « **on:** November 05, 2011, 05:05:45 PM »

Someone please tell me why it is repeated here by some that a layman is not allowed to say the chair of Peter is empty?

And is that believed to be the case even if the clergy say that it is empty?

Are lay people supposed to never question that, and is it the case then, that there can never be a state of sedevacantism according to the layman, no matter who, or what, is pope?

Sigismund · « **Reply #1 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:10:27 PM »

Well, I would argue that neither layman or cleric can say the chair of Peter is empty because it isn't...

sedesvacans · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:21:04 PM »

Could it ever be? And if so, why? Or if not, why not?

LordPhan · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:40:31 PM »

Because noone may pass judgement on the Pontiff. He is the highest authority on the land. A council of the Church could declare that he wasn't the Pope not by their authority but on the authority of the Church judging that he had already lost the office for say, denying a Dogma with an Anathema attached to it.

A future Pope can pass judgement on a past Pope, but a layman cannot.

You can regonize the errors and disobey of course.

We must obey God first and foremost, if the Pope contradicts God or the laws of the Church then we are not only allowed to disobey him, we are required to on pain of sin.

I'm sure someone else will give you a better answer however. It is rather late.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2011, 12:21:11 AM »

If the Chair is empty the man can't be Pontiff, so no judgement is being cast on the Pontiff. I can't understand why this doesn't compute with LordPhan, no matter how many times he's been told.

If someone claiming to be Pope publicly disavowed the Catholic Faith, he can't possibly be Pope. Using LordPhan's argument, we would have to withhold judgment. That's insanity.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2011, 12:27:16 AM »

Making such a declaration is quite formal, and not within the powers of laity.

However, laity *can* determine material heresy, albeit not formal heresy.

If you see it, you can call it as you see it if you're properly catechized you do this every day when presented with TV etc

Anyway, I digress, bit this is the reason many feel sedevacantism isn't tenable.

I myself am, more or less, a sedeprivationist, which seems to most Trads, tenable.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2011, 01:38:03 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Well, I would argue that neither layman or cleric can say the chair of Peter is empty because it isn't...

Yeah, it isnt, an Ipso Facto excommunicated heretic sits there.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2011, 01:40:36 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

The chair must be occupied by a professing Catholic.

Ratzinger is an apostate priest and therefore cannot be elected as a successor of St Peter because he is not a Catholic.

BTW, Benedict is a valid priest but he is not a valid bishop, since he was consecrated using the 1968 invalid form.

Gregory I · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2011, 01:45:42 AM »

Here is what tickles me purple:

When a person violates canon law and professes public and manifest heresy, according to canon law and the opinon of theologians (I know Bellarmine at least) He is PRESUMED malicious. He is guilty until proven innocent.

No SSPX'er seems to either understand that or acknowledge that.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2011, 08:11:25 AM »

But why do SSPX supporters believe that it is "unlawful?" for a layman to say that?

Where is that written? Who said that? Who were they saying it about? etc.

Gregory I · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2011, 11:58:39 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: Hermenegild
The chair must be occupied by a professing Catholic.

Ratzinger is an apostate priest and therefore cannot be elected as a successor of St Peter because he is not a Catholic.

BTW, Benedict is a valid priest but he is not a valid bishop, since he was consecrated using the 1968 invalid form.

Yes, there are three strikes against him. The SSPX position fails to see all of them.

Heck, I can put FIVE strikes against him! :dancing-banana:

In order:

1. Assuming the Siri thesis to be plausible, and nothing else true, he is at LEAST an anti-pope.

2. Assuming Griff Ruby's theory of legal separation of Vatican institution and RCC to be true, he doesn't even have the POWER of the Pope, by definition (Universal jurisdiction over all the visible members of the Church; but Ratzinger says heretics are visible members, but he has no jurisdiction over them! Therefore, not the Power of a Pope, but a Patriarch, by his own definition. Therefore NOT the Pope).

3. Assuming he taught heresy BEFORE his election in a public and manifest way, he cannot have been validly elected (His eucharistic heresies where he denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

4. Assuming he was consecrated "bishop" by a doubtful rite, the 1968 rite of EpOr, it is doubtful he is even a bishop, which means it is doubtful he was ever legitimately installed as "Pope."

5. Assuming he taught heresy in a public and manifest way for all to see (and he has, read "Jesus of Nazareth" and his comments on the Jєωs not needing Christ to be saved for starters and this past Assisi III debacle) AFTER his election, he has at LEAST since then Fallen under the condemnation of Pope Innocent III:

Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III

— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

Now, consider the very REAL possibility that ALL of these points, if not only one, can very well be true, and what is the likelihood of him actually being Pope?
0.0001%? 0%?