Why do traditional catholics think the pope seat is empty?
They don’t. It is only “sedevacantists” who hold this belief.
Well, not ‘traditional Catholics’, but rather, ‘schismatic Catholics’.
[quote=MrPizzaDude]Why do traditional catholics think the pope seat is empty?
Because it’s empty of someone who interprets Church teaching in the way they do? :shrug:
sedevacantists a heresey?
Technically they would be considered schismatics.
Here is a good primer on those definitions:
Traditionalists typically fall into three categories
- Loyal to the Pope/Church - I would think most of us fall into this category
- SSPX types
SSPX is also not formally in schism.
A couple of points/questions that sedevacanteists can’t answer with a straight face. If the chair of Peter is vacant, and there has been no valid Pope for the past 50-70 years, and that only a valid Pope can appoint cardinals (who’s primary vocation is choosing a Pope), how could we ever expect have a valid Pope again since all of these so called valid Cardinals elevated by valid Popes have all but died off? If this was the case, we could never have a validly elected Pope ever again. That being the case, that would make Jesus a liar in Matthew 16:18.
Where in Canon Law or Church practice can we find a valid procedure for choosing a Pope outside of the college of Cardinals? There are numerous historical precedence for this, however all of these are in fact anti-popes.
By claiming that there is no valid Pope when in fact the Church declares that there is, are you not outside the Church just as Orthodox Christians and Protestant Christians?
Thanks for posting this excellent link.
Handy to have at the ready for those who frequently get asked these questions.
Christians ought to be obedient and submissive to legitimate Church leaders. (Hebrews 13:17) Therefore, to avoid giving obedience and submission to a Church leader they don’t like, such people question the leader’s legitimacy.
Their reasoning seems to be, We don’t like what the current pope says, therefore he must not be a true pope.
Unless a person defines the terms they use it is unclear what they might mean.
A Traditionalist is someone who makes their own religion and calls it “Catholic”. A traditional Catholic is usually one who legitimately worships through the Tridentine Mass.
It is important not to confuse a traditional Catholic who recognises the value of the Tridentine Mass and the Ordo Missae Mass with a “traditionalist” who is as described below by James Likoudis in his book review.
The Great Facade, Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, a book review by James Likoudis from which we find the “traditionalist” position:
The negative aspects of the “liturgical revolution” have clearly provoked the ire of the volume’s authors to engage in relentless tirades against the Council and its Popes for allegedly betraying Catholic Tradition and Practice. There is, however, one important value to be found in The Great Facade for all to see and ponder. It candidly states the “traditionalist” position: “A traditionalist is someone who believes that the postconciliar novelties especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism ought to be abandoned.”
I am a traditionalist, and I am completely loyal to the Pope. I do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo, so long as it is celebrated reverently and according to the Missal.
There are many traditional Catholics who don’t like the ordinary form at all and would rather never go to one again, but still consider it a valid Mass. There are way too many ways to label someone a traditionalist and conjure up negative connotations. There are some who take things way over the edge to the point where they are always angry at the Church and find ways to accept a position where the Church is no longer the Church, but some sort of impostor.
However, whether one is a sede, SSPX, or a traditionalist in good standing with the Church, all of these people will agree on their opinion that the traditional ways are best for the Church. They feel that the changes since VII have done nothing but water down the faith and lead many souls into apostasy. They also see the general contempt for all things relating to tradition from the top all the way to the individual parish level where as things that go directly against Church teachings seem to be less condemned and almost accepted.
It’s silly to suggest that sedes and SSPX followers don’t want to be in full Communion with the Church. These people just disagree so harshly with what the Church has done over the past 50ish years that they cannot reconcile doing so.