I am a sedevacantist. How prevalent is this type of thought on these forums and would anyone like to discuss it?
Sedecavantism is not prevalent on this forum, however, prior to the forum redesign anything sedevacantist would have been silenced and closed.
I haven’t experienced much sedevacantist debate since the upgrade, however I would welcome it because as Catholics we have freedom of thought and freedom of concern - I am not a sedevacantist, not in any way, shape, nor form. Yet we faithful must address our concerns.
I hope the new design allows that.
I am new here so I was not aware of its previous state. I, a sedevacantist welcome debate as well.
How long have you been a sedevacanist? Why are you a sedevacanist?
Im not sede either but welcome and God bless♡
It is a symptom of our consumer society.
I would say that one that does not follow the papacy is pretty much treated the same, whether they are Protestant, Orthodox or sedevacantist. As long as the discussion is civil and our pope treated respectfully, discussion is allowed now. But in the end, such things are a moderator decision.
Around 3 years. It aligns with canon law which aligns with biblical law.
How so? I’m not sure I understand this response
Thank you for your warm welcome!
I welcome you - to reconsider the opinions that you have been taught. By what authority does anyone on earth declare the seat of Peter to be vacant?
No matter how it is explained, at some level, the belief holds that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against Christ’s Church.
From my POV:
- A sede would be someone who believes in the papal chair, but thinks it occupied by someone other than a valid pope.
- They might think the real pope does currently exist, but is staying quiet because of their own safety, or ignorance.
- More likely they think no valid pope is alive.
- The issue then is, what year? I think some sedevacantists might say the last valid pope died in - 1958 is a typical year. But they have to explain how John XXIII would have been elected by cardinals most of whom were appointed by a valid pope. Sure, you can posit some election mischief or corruption, but wouldn’t the faithful Pope Pius XII-appointed bishops have spoken out on this?
- I wonder if the OP believes that a visible, Apostolic Succession endures to this day. You might have the Petrine succession without the Apostolic, or Apostolic without the Petrine, but it seems to stretch plausibility.
- I am sure there are other aspects of this I am not even thinking of. I welcome feedback.
Welcome to the forum. I, myself, am not a sedevacatist, but I am a SSPX Catholic. I hope we will be able to have some open discussion!
Also, which community of sedevacatists are you with?
You mean there is more than one group of sedevacanists?!
The Orthodox never refused not to follow the papacy. Prior to the schism the bishop of Rome was the first among equals. Following disagreements and really ridiculous actions taken on both sides and the difference of tradition and language used, the two ex communicated each other and the bishop or Patriarch of " New Rome", Constantinople, has since the schism been the first among equals. Prior though the bishop of Rome was held to be the authority. The east and west had different opinions on what that ultimate authority was.
1917 or 1983 Code of Canon Law?
And what do you mean by biblical law? That could refer to two things, moral or ceremonial.
In the context you’re providing, however, it seems more important to focus on divine vs ecclesiastical law (dogma vs discipline).
And what suggests that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church has ceased to exist?
A bishop can’t consecrate others as bishops without approval from the Vatican; only the pope can appoint bishops without permission from anyone else.
So if no new, valid bishops are being consecrated, wouldn’t the indefectibility of the Church be challenged?
Isnt sspx sede though?
I appreciated what u had to say. Thnk u for sharing.
What do you mean? I casually attend SSPX but I mostly just go to TLM masses