Best arguments for Sedevecantism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well this gets to the whole Apostolic Succession thing, doesn’t it? You either accept the whole line of papal succession or you don’t. Why only go back to Pius XII? If you look back at the history of the popes, there are all sorts of reasons to invalidate some of them, and if you invalidate one, you pretty much invalidate all of them that come after.

For the first millennia of The Church, there was no fixed method for choosing popes. It was variously done by a pope naming his successor, a secular ruler naming the pope or a default to the Bishop of Rome. It wasn’t until 1059 that the current conclave system was put in place and it is arguable that does not follow the example of Christ choosing Peter as his successor.

So either you buy into the idea that God would not let the succession go wrong, not matter how it might seem to us humans or you have to accept that Peter may have been the only legitimate Pope. But either way, these Sedevacantists are wrong.
 
There really is no good Catholic argument to be a sedevacantist. If the conclave of 1958 were invalid, then the Catholic argument would be to have a new conclave, immediately. There can’t be a Catholic opinion to simply live indefinitely without a Pope. As Catholics, we must have a Pope, so, there really is no good argument for sedevacantism.
 
There have been some who have reached that conclusion and held a conclave, and even elected themselves pope. It is almost the only logical outcome of sedevacantism, though I find great irony in being so Catholic that you make yourself the pope.
 
TradidiQuodEtAccepi said:
I may not be a Sedevacantist myself, but their arguements and reasons are not as dull as most people think.
Click to expand...
The are not dull, but then neither are most arguments for atheism. In fact, it my be the very reliant on reason, specifically, one’s own intellectual ability to reason, that is at the heart of sedevacantism. That is why I say humility is the cure. It allows one to rely on more than one’s personal intellectual capacity as the arbiter of truth.

Martin Luther was right about a great many things. However, his rejection of authority, allowing his own intellect to be the sole arbiter of truth left him blind to what he was wrong about. So while sedevacantist and Protestants have many differences, and are not the same, it would be unwise to ignore the same root errors.
 
Last edited:
Yes, when I was a sede I was given certain information and their arguments simply seemed so logical and reasonable that I couldn’t see an alternative, given the limited resources I had available to me.
 
That’s a lame argument, and also not accurate. You’re making the accusation, so the burden of proof is on you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top