Peter's Chair empty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J1Priest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

J1Priest

Guest
So, I have been hearing things that the Traditoinalists (the extreme ones) often claim.
among them is that there is no Pope since (or before) Vatican II.

Can anyone tell me the whole story (I also heard a connection of Masons and prophecies of a Saint), and tell me how to respond to such claims?

Obviously there has been a Pope after VII, and though many Traditionalists don’t like him, Pope John Paull II has been a great Pope.

God bless
 
J1Priest said:
So, I have been hearing things that the Traditoinalists (the extreme ones) often claim.
among them is that there is no Pope since (or before) Vatican II.

Can anyone tell me the whole story (I also heard a connection of Masons and prophecies of a Saint), and tell me how to respond to such claims?

Obviously there has been a Pope after VII, and though many Traditionalists don’t like him, Pope John Paull II has been a great Pope.

God bless
Click to expand...

There have been huge volumes written on this so to “tell you the whole story” on this thread would be impossible.
However, I will summarize it simply:
Such a person is Sedevacant-ist. ie the chair is vacant.
The theory goes as follows:
If the elected pope is or becomes a heretic, he is ipso facto not a Catholic, but a heretic.
One who is not a Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church.
The person occupying the Chair is a heretic, therefore, not Catholic, therefore, cannot possibly be the pope.​

The Obstacle this creates is how, after so many years, having created invalid cardinals, bishops by a heretic, will a true pope ever again be elected since there is no one left to validly elect one.​

End of story.
 
TNT said:

The Obstacle this creates is how, after so many years, having created invalid cardinals, bishops by a heretic, will a true pope ever again be elected since there is no one left to validly elect one.​

End of story.
Click to expand...
In short, sedevacantism is a mental disorder, (not as bad as liberalism :)), but still a mental disorder.
 
TNT said:

There have been huge volumes written on this so to “tell you the whole story” on this thread would be impossible.
However, I will summarize it simply:
Such a person is Sedevacant-ist. ie the chair is vacant.
The theory goes as follows:
If the elected pope is or becomes a heretic, he is ipso facto not a Catholic, but a heretic.
One who is not a Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church.
The person occupying the Chair is a heretic, therefore, not Catholic, therefore, cannot possibly be the pope.​

The Obstacle this creates is how, after so many years, having created invalid cardinals, bishops by a heretic, will a true pope ever again be elected since there is no one left to validly elect one.​

End of story.
Click to expand...
This I cannot understand. The issue is really APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION which has never been broken even amongst some Protestant sectors. Christ never specified how Peter would be chosen but as long as he’s the RECOGNIZED leader of the Church he is Peter. Even Peter denied Christ, remember (?), so even if the Pope is a proven heretic, he is still the Pope.

There have been many articles about Siri being the real elected Pope after Pius XII but so what even if he had more votes than anyone else? If he doesn’t accept or there was a block of Cardinals, even if they were Masons, that successfully blocked his taking over as Pope, then he is not Pope.

I know only one or two individuals who are what you call sedevacanists but this is not the norm amonst traditionalists. They have no valid arguments if they argue the Pope is a heretic and therefore cannot be Pope. There is a book Saints and Sinners for those who wish to read the history behind the papacy.
 
Sure there’s a Pope- Pope Michael who lives in the Vatican-in exile, aka his mother’s basement 😉

Seriously, sedevacantism [edited by moderator–derogatory remark] gives a bad name to all traditionalists.
 
Thank you for all your answers and keep them coming.

More questions, though, for now.

What made these people start saying that there is no Pope (any connection with VII?)?

And doesn’t this imply that the Magisterium did go wrong?

And what about the prophecies of the Saint?
 
J1Priest said:
So, I have been hearing things that the Traditoinalists (the extreme ones) often claim.
among them is that there is no Pope since (or before) Vatican II.

Can anyone tell me the whole story (I also heard a connection of Masons and prophecies of a Saint), and tell me how to respond to such claims?

Obviously there has been a Pope after VII, and though many Traditionalists don’t like him, Pope John Paull II has been a great Pope.

God bless
Click to expand...

1. Even if no Pope has been canonically elected since then, the fact that all putative popes elected since then have been treated by the Church as true popes, means that any defect in their title to the papacy has been made good thereby.​

  1. If there has been no true pope since then, it follows that all papal acts are either
  • invalid - in which case, all dioceses since erected, all bishops elected ot transferred, all teaching of the Roman bishops, etc., is invalid. IOW, the Church loses all its bishops at a stroke; & all ordinations of these bishops are invalid; which makes the Masses offered by priests ordained by them also invalid.
    or
  • they too are validated by their acceptance - as are their acts
  1. Prophecies are quite often false - even of saints. There are far too many half-witted 19th century French nuns, unknown except to “Traditionalists”, alleged to have had [pseudo-] visions denouncing Popes & Councils. And ther has been over-abundance of lying visions & false prophecies in recent years, which have been proven false by not coming true. The only spirit they come from is alcohol.
Ignore them
 
The sades are a nuty bunch who are prone to conspiracy theories. They also tend to be Anti – SSPX and Ant- Indult

BUT to be fair you should get their view point from them
One site is

novusordowatch.org/faq.htm
 
My friend just became a “sede”… 😦

Can you all keep her in your prayers?

Thank you

God bless
 
Caesar said:
Sure there’s a Pope- Pope Michael who lives in the Vatican-in exile, aka his mother’s basement 😉

Seriously, sedevacantism [edited by moderator–derogatory remark] gives a bad name to all traditionalists.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, “Pope Michael” isn’t even a priest. He is a layman. Sorry, Michael, but it isn’t traditional for the pope to be just a layman.
Am I happy with everything Benedict XVI does? NO.
Is he still the pope? YES!
 
Catholig said:
Might as well tell her to go all the way and become protestant. 😦

Catholig
Click to expand...
That’s brutal. You know, people who worship the Pope aren’t much better. In fact, they violate the First Commandment.

Prayers all around.
 
tradcathconvert said:
If I remember correctly, “Pope Michael” isn’t even a priest. He is a layman. Sorry, Michael, but it isn’t traditional for the pope to be just a layman.
Am I happy with everything Benedict XVI does? NO.
Is he still the pope? YES!
Click to expand...
From what I’ve heard of him, he was rejected by the SSPX, became a sede shortly after, then was “elected” (anti-)Pope in the back room of store by six laymen, three of whom were family. He currently lives in his mother’s house which he calls the Vatican In Exile. :rolleyes:
 
PepeRoni said:
By that people usually mean that everything a Pope says/does is infallible and/or must be accepted without objection
Click to expand...
That’s called Zombieism not idolatry. Idolatry is believing somone/thing to be diety outside the Trinity.

BTW:
No, a heretic is no longer a Catholic. That’s why they are called heretics. They deny/ reject some or all of the Catholic Faith aka her perennial beliefs.
 
BobP123 said:
That’s brutal. You know, people who worship the Pope aren’t much better. In fact, they violate the First Commandment.

Prayers all around.
Click to expand...
Why is that “brutal” I was just pointing out that sedevaticanists and protestants are fundamentally the same thing. The both disregard authority - or better yet believe there is no real authority (at least not on earth). Really show me where the difference is?

Also I don’t worship the Pope nor do any of the catholics I know. They might hold him as something of a standard e.g. “the Pope said…”, however that’s not worshiping him. In fact we pray for the pope - do we pray for people we worship?

Catholig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top