18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
With Catholic teaching telling the flock to obey the pope, this leads to confusion in our time as youhave to be an amateur theologian to do that or not.The chances of a traditional pope being elected nowadays is zero, no matter how many prayers are said.
The chances of a traditional pope being elected nowadays is zero, no matter how many prayers are said.It will be no different to every pope elected since John XXIII.The media is awash with the need for a pope who will continue with the 'progressive' Church of Pope Francis.Just look at the end he got in both Church and media and you would think the world has gone 'Catholic.'In no time we will have another saint.The only hope is divine miraculous chastisement, like the roof fallingdown as they pick the next modernist. How in God's name did He allow His Church to become 'the seat of theAntichrist' as our Lady of La Salette is said to have prophesied. .
OK? So what's the problem? This is the nature of this chastisement, a sifting of the faith, the faithful from the unfaithful (those who just clung to the Church for cultural reasons or on automatic pilot, and not because they actually discerned the true faith and the true Church). So while strengthening the faith of those who pass the test, it's weeding out those who didn't really have it but were just glommed onto the Body of Christ like some kind of accretion. It's that end-times sifting Our Lord predicted.I did it because, among other things, sedevacantism is a cop out. Simultaneously arguing for certainty of doctrinal safety guaranteed by the papacy while also arguing that any putative pope that ISNT safe to follow simply isn’t a real pope. It’s an unfalsifiable position. Orthodoxy simply admits the mystery and the reality that the papacy guarantees nothing, and it never did.
Those of us who have the Catholic faith are in no ways troubled by the natural perspective on the situation. God is in complete control and ending the Crisis would be for Him mere childsplay. Do we have such little faith? Yes, this is a test of faith. In His time, God will remove the wicked infiltrators and restore the Church. Who cares about what this apostate Nonclave is going to do?
Book I, Chapter 10
Eighth PropositionQuoteIf there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement. Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2. De potestate Ecclesiae.
Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy.
But these two opinions can be reconciled. Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City [posteaquam unitus est Pontificatus orbis Episcopatui Urbis], the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighboring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways.
First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church.
Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighboring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also. And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors. For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance.
So, what?, you're claiming that the Church's dogmatic teaching at Vatican I which "tells the flock" that all Catholics must obey the pope is wrong or leads to confusion?
There's no confusion, my man. We are required to obey the pope, and the answer is quite simple. Instead of impugning the dogmatic teaching of the Church at Vatican I (and going Old Catholic or Orthodox), how about waking up to realize that these clowns are not popes? They're wicked infiltrators bent on destroying the Church. Problem solved.
I am utterly gobsmacked by how many people go Orthodox or Old Catholic rather than entertain the possibility that the See may be vacant. So it's more important to have a guy walking around Rome dressed in a white cassock than to keep the Catholic faith? You're willing to throw the Church, and the Church's dogmatic teaching, under the bus to salvage Bergoglio? Are you people daft, man? This is where R&R represents some kind of mental illness.
If I was Peter I would have laid down the rule that only a bishop or cardinal that professed the Faith as it was laid out over the first centuries could become a pope. That would have prevented the chaos within the Church today..
I did it because, among other things, sedevacantism is a cop out. Simultaneously arguing for certainty of doctrinal safety guaranteed by the papacy while also arguing that any putative pope that ISNT safe to follow simply isn’t a real pope. It’s an unfalsifiable position. Orthodoxy simply admits the mystery and the reality that the papacy guarantees nothing, and it never did.No. These people go "orthodox" because they don't want to make the sacrifices Sedevacantists make.
r and r is better in that it’s technically falsifiable at least but it also falls into the pitfall you note.
now to be clear I’m answering you because you specifically said it blows your mind that people go Orthodox over this. I think it’s a quite sensible reaction to the apparent reality that the RCC and its whole hierarchy has defected, rather than being like “well I’m certain that the papacy knew what it was doing when it added filioque to the creed and dogmatized the immaculate conception but totally not with Vatican ii”
There are basically two opinions of theologians, one being that the clergy of the diocese of Rome would have the right to elect the pope, and the other is that the bishops of the world could get together in council and elect a pope. The latter opinion seemed to have a bit more support, and the arguments in favor of it struck me as more convincing.
Here's an example of what St. Robert Bellarmine said on this subject:
In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement. Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2. De potestate Ecclesiae.
Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy.
But these two opinions can be reconciled. Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City [posteaquam unitus est Pontificatus orbis Episcopatui Urbis], the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighboring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways.
First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church.
Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighboring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also. And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors. For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance.
No. These people go "orthodox" because they don't want to make the sacrifices Sedevacantists make.I don’t really want to argue for Orthodoxy on this forum because it looks bad to hijack a Catholic forum like that and I joined before I converted, but I do find the incessant assumptions of the worst from a lot of people on this forum to be dumb. Not surprising, mind you. I guess among my other reasons I listed which are more foundational I should say that I have no interest in being a part of a community that is this chronically suspicious, judgmental, and always assumes the worst of other people
I don’t really want to argue for Orthodoxy on this forum because it looks bad to hijack a Catholic forum like that and I joined before I converted, but I do find the incessant assumptions of the worst from a lot of people on this forum to be dumb. Not surprising, mind you. I guess among my other reasons I listed which are more foundational I should say that I have no interest in being a part of a community that is this chronically suspicious, judgmental, and always assumes the worst of other people
sure “judge not lest you be judged” gets chronically misused by liberals, but I think some of this forum should take it to heart
Then there is 'By their fruits you will know them.'Can you explain what you’re getting at here? Because I’m not totally sure what you’re trying to say at all.
A sedevacantist website called the WM Review did a study of about half a dozen theologians (https://www.wmreview.org/p/papal-elections-bellarmine) who taught what should be done if there were no college of cardinals, or if they were somehow unable to elect a pope, such as by being locked in dungeons or something.Hmm. I was just asking elsewhere about something written by James Larrabee regarding papal elections without Cardinals, but I'm not sure if this was it. For some reason, I don't remember it being a translation of something St Robert Bellarmine wrote. I seem to recall it was his own thoughts.
Can you explain what you’re getting at here? Because I’m not totally sure what you’re trying to say at all.