"Sede Vacante" Argument

[Birdmanman]

The following is a hypothetical argument that might be levied against Catholicism; I am interested in seeing how others would respond to it. (No one has used this argument against me personally, but I always like to be prepared.)

1. In order for the a Church to be the [legitimate] Catholic Church, it must have an earthly head, namely, the Pope.
2. In periods of transition between Popes, there is a vacant seat, and no true Pope or person is the earthly head of the Church at this time.
3. Therefore, during these time periods of a vacant seat, what was once the Catholic Church is not legitimately called the Catholic Church.

[The argument can be adjusted by historical data about how long the longest period was that the Church was in transition between Popes, and by hypothetically adjusting that number, “Well what about 100 years sede vacante? 1000 years in transition? 10,000?”]

Please note that I do not think that this is a good or effective argument, and that I do believe, as all should, that the Catholic Church is legitimately the Catholic Church at all times, even during periods between Popes.

 

[Petaro]

Then why bother with an argument you can see is facile, failing at the first assumption?

 

[Elizium23]

Petaro is correct; the first assumption is false, so I don’t see any semblance of a valid argument here.

 

[christus_vincit]

The following is a hypothetical argument that might be levied against Catholicism; I am interested in seeing how others would respond to it. (No one has used this argument against me personally, but I always like to be prepared.)

1. In order for the a Church to be the [legitimate] Catholic Church, it must have an earthly head, namely, the Pope.
2. In periods of transition between Popes, there is a vacant seat, and no true Pope or person is the earthly head of the Church at this time.
3. Therefore, during these time periods of a vacant seat, what was once the Catholic Church is not legitimately called the Catholic Church.

[The argument can be adjusted by historical data about how long the longest period was that the Church was in transition between Popes, and by hypothetically adjusting that number, “Well what about 100 years sede vacante? 1000 years in transition? 10,000?”]

Please note that I do not think that this is a good or effective argument, and that I do believe, as all should, that the Catholic Church is legitimately the Catholic Church at all times, even during periods between Popes.

I would argue that the first premise is flawed. Christ is the Head of the Church - and His seat is never vacant.

A period of time during which the Chair of Peter is empty - even if it is for a number of years - does not destroy the integrity the Church. The Church has human elements - and humans tend to die. Christ obviously knew that Peter would die and that someone would succeed him as pope. A reduction of this argument would have to argue that the Catholic Church ended the moment Peter died and his seat became vacant - this is absurd and frankly makes Jesus look like a poor planner.

 

[po18guy]

As christus_vincit made clear, we are members of the Body of Christ, with Christ as immortal Head of that Body. So, the earthly Church is never without its head.

As Paul wrote, he was an ambassador for Christ, so a vacant seat as in the case of Judas, or upon the death of a pope, is simply an ambassadorial vacancy waiting to be filled.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The following is a hypothetical argument that might be levied against Catholicism; I am interested in seeing how others would respond to it. (No one has used this argument against me personally, but I always like to be prepared.)

1. In order for the a Church to be the [legitimate] Catholic Church, it must have an earthly head, namely, the Pope.
2. In periods of transition between Popes, there is a vacant seat, and no true Pope or person is the earthly head of the Church at this time.
3. Therefore, during these time periods of a vacant seat, what was once the Catholic Church is not legitimately called the Catholic Church.

[The argument can be adjusted by historical data about how long the longest period was that the Church was in transition between Popes, and by hypothetically adjusting that number, “Well what about 100 years sede vacante? 1000 years in transition? 10,000?”]

Please note that I do not think that this is a good or effective argument, and that I do believe, as all should, that the Catholic Church is legitimately the Catholic Church at all times, even during periods between Popes.

Point 1 is a false premise. When the Vicar of Christ is absent Christ and the Holy Spirit still protect.

 

[z_0101]

Then why bother with an argument you can see is facile, failing at the first assumption?

Talk with a Mormon at the door recently, they talk about the “Great Apostasy” ( IN SEARCH OF “THE GREAT APOSTASY” - Patrick Madrid ) With the more recent twist being that if there are times of Sede Vacnte being part of the Great Apostasy…

Therefor, I would basically argue the the “Sede Vacante” in the same way this section argues the falseness of the apostasy:

If Smith was right about apostasy, then Jesus was a pathetic failure when it came to establishing his Church. After all, what are we to think of his promises? If there really was a complete apostasy, how do we explain our Lord’s claim that his Church never would be overcome, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16,26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?

 

[polytropos]

1. In order for the a Church to be the [legitimate] Catholic Church, it must have an earthly head, namely, the Pope.
2. In periods of transition between Popes, there is a vacant seat, and no true Pope or person is the earthly head of the Church at this time.
3. Therefore, during these time periods of a vacant seat, what was once the Catholic Church is not legitimately called the Catholic Church.

I am going to disagree with most people here.

The first premise does not seem to me to deny that Christ is the true head of the Catholic Church. But it does assert that the pope is a necessary component of anything that would purport to be Christ’s true Church. That is something I believe Catholics are committed to in arguing against, say, Protestants.

The problem with the first premise is that, in order for the argument to be valid, it requires the additional clause “at all times”:

1*. In order for the a Church to be the [legitimate] Catholic Church, it must have an earthly head, namely, the Pope at all times.

That premise, however, seems to me to be false. The pope’s seat being occasionally and briefly empty is consistent with its serving its intended role. If, instead of “at all times,” we added “at most times” to make the premise true, then the conclusion of the argument would not follow.

 

[polytropos]

Point 1 is a false premise. When the Vicar of Christ is absent Christ and the Holy Spirit still protect.

I believe that it is true that the Church is not unprotected when the pope’s seat is unoccupied. But as Catholics, we cannot use that itself as a rebuff to the argument given in the OP, for we also want to avoid the conclusion (which some Protestants might assert) that the pope is inessential to the Church. If Christ still protects the Church without the pope, then why do we have a pope?

We are still committed to the claim that the pope is a necessary component of Christ’s Church. What should be disputed is that the pope’s seat must be filled at all times.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe that it is true that the Church is not unprotected when the pope’s seat is unoccupied. But as Catholics, we cannot use that itself as a rebuff to the argument given in the OP, for we also want to avoid the conclusion (which some Protestants might assert) that the pope is inessential to the Church. If Christ still protects the Church without the pope, then why do we have a pope?

We are still committed to the claim that the pope is a necessary component of Christ’s Church. What should be disputed is that the pope’s seat must be filled at all times.

That makes sense.

The ordinary protection is through the Pope, but God is not limited by the pope being there or not. He can easily protect the church during times of transition.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Please note that I do not think that this is a good or effective argument, and that I do believe, as all should, that the Catholic Church is legitimately the Catholic Church at all times, even during periods between Popes.

You are right. It’s not a legitimate argument. It’s as if you could argue that during the short interval between the death of a President and the swearing in of the dead President’s successor there was no legitimate United States of America.

 

[po18guy]

1. Since the new pope is chosen from among the late pope’s living successors, he was always there in the Church - just not in the office. The Holy Spirit had His eye on him all the time. If nothing else, this is a win on a technicality!
2. This argument is akin to taking a snapshot of a person at the moment that they have just stopped exhaling, but have not begun to inhale - and claiming that they are dead because they are not breathing.

 

[Birdmanman]

Thanks everyone for your responses, I think you have successfully put this issue to bed should it ever arise in argument for me!

I believe that it is true that the Church is not unprotected when the pope’s seat is unoccupied. But as Catholics, we cannot use that itself as a rebuff to the argument given in the OP, for we also want to avoid the conclusion (which some Protestants might assert) that the pope is inessential to the Church. If Christ still protects the Church without the pope, then why do we have a pope?

We are still committed to the claim that the pope is a necessary component of Christ’s Church. What should be disputed is that the pope’s seat must be filled at all times.

Could it be that the office of the Pope is a necessary component of Christ’s Church, and not an actual Pope filling that office at any given time? (In this situation, it would be theoretically possible for there to be no popes in the Church whatsoever, yet it would still remain Christ’s Church).
Or perhaps we can say what is essential (among other things) is both (1) that there is a pope “at most times”, and (2) that there is the office or authority of the Pope available (to be filled/taken up) at all times.

I find the ‘understood/intended gap’ explanation to be the best; surely when instituting the authority of the earthly head of the Church, Christ anticipated some periods of time, however short, in which there was a transition and a vacant seat.

 

[po18guy]

Could it be that the office of the Pope is a necessary component of Christ’s Church, and not an actual Pope filling that office at any given time?

Just getting non-Catholics to admit that the seat belongs there is enough of a hurdle!