Sedevacantist vs E. Orthodox

[Gregory_I]

What are the practical implications for Sedevacantist Ecclesiology? If there has not been a legitimate pope since Pius XII, then there is no need for the Pope as an absolute center of church unity, for those who cling to the truth are united to Christ. SSPV, and The Sirianist theorists won’t deny the fact that they feel they are the Traditional Roman Catholic Church.

NOW…

How does this differ from the Ecclesiology of the Orthodox?

If your church can be catholic and exist without a pope, no matter how much you say you want one, then why, practically, do you cling to the title of “roman” Catholic, Sede’s?

At best, Practically, the Pope would only be as Functional to you as an Archbishop, just to bring you all in line with each other (THose who aren’t generating new dogmas anyway).

It is often said by Sedevacantists that Traditionalists are just sedevacantists in disguise. I go one further, Sedevacantists are just Orthodox in disguise.

 

[Toribus]

It was my understanding that while the E Orthodox don’t believe there is ever the need for a universal patriarch (ie the Pope), Sedevacantists believe that one is necessary but not present.

The sedevacantist believes that if only people would realise that there isn’t a validly appointed pope at the moment, we could get on with the job of electing one.

 

[Hesychios]

Orthodox don’t believe there is no Pope. Orthodox are not sedevacantists.

They know exactly who he is and where he is.

Orthodox know that much of what is claimed to be Papal power does not really exist, but the office and the man…well, he’s right there in Rome (unless he’s visiting us ).

View attachment 5725

I think that there is a slight similarity (not agreement) between the SSPX and Orthodox in our understanding of Papal power. We both recognize it has limitations the Vatican itself has been loathe to admit.

 

[Toribus]

On the contrary, the Church has always taught that the power of Peter and his successors has always been limited in distinct ways - for instance, nobody can ever attempt to alter the Deposit of Faith.

The SSPX would also vehemently disagree with your statement - they in no uncertain terms defend the primacy and universal authority of the Holy Father. Rather, they claim that where they have been disobedient, it is “out of necessity” and “as foreseen by the provisions of Canon Law”.

 

[larousser]

Orthodox don’t believe there is no Pope. Orthodox are not sedevacantists.

http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/451.gif Surely you would view the post-schism popes as no more than pretenders to the papacy of Rome. Perhaps analogous to how a Jacobite would consider the Hanoverian sovereigns (ie, concede them to be de facto but not de jure monarchs)?
Unless you believe that jurisdiction can exist outside the Church???http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/497.gif

 

[Hesychios]

Surely you would view the post-schism popes as no more than pretenders to the papacy of Rome. Perhaps analogous to how a Jacobite would consider the Hanoverian sovereigns (ie, concede them to be de facto but not de jure monarchs)?
Unless you believe that jurisdiction can exist outside the Church???

The Latin church is autocephalic, just like Orthodox churches.

The Bishop of Rome and other bishops have jurisdiction in that church. The fact that the church teaches error is something which can be corrected. If the corrections were made we could again share communion.

It is something worth praying for.

 

[Hesychios]

On the contrary, the Church has always taught that the power of Peter and his successors has always been limited in distinct ways - for instance, nobody can ever attempt to alter the Deposit of Faith.

Yet it has already happened.

In any case, it is obvious we all agree that there are limits to Papal power, we just disagree on where these limits fall.

The SSPX would also vehemently disagree with your statement - they in no uncertain terms defend the primacy and universal authority of the Holy Father. Rather, they claim that where they have been disobedient, it is “out of necessity” and “as foreseen by the provisions of Canon Law”.

In other words they would agree that the Papacy has exceeded it’s own limits, necessitating their actions.

However I agree that the analogy is a poor one. The SSPX, like the Old Catholics and some Protestant churches, has been under Papal power. The Orthodox church has not.