Seems like trads have a problem

[thessalonian]

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere on the web. I don't know if we have any traditionalists/sedevacantists who will participate.

I was thinking a bit ago. The traditionalsists/sedevacantists have a problem. It's called Unam Sanctum. They do not believe there is a current Bishop of Rome. Now here is the problem. Unam Sanctum says:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Now how does one get around not having to be subject to a Pope. Is there some sort of a doctrine/dogma in the canons of the Church that says if there is no pope for x amount of days this statement is null and void. Something like the "invincible ignorance" doctrines which they deny? What let's them off the hook for this statement from US. Further it would seem that if the Holy Spirit had guided the Pope to make a statement and the trad interprutation of such statements is correct, then the Holy Spirit would have always ensured that the gates of hell would not prevail (i.e. there would always be a roman pontiff. ). Of course the HS did.

Thoughts?

[Era Might]

There are a lot of inherent problems with sedevacantism.

For example, let's suppose they're right. There has not been a Pope since 1958.

Only Cardinals can elect a Pope.

I don't believe there are any Cardinals left over from the reign of Pius XII.

Hence, there is no possible way for a Pope to be elected. Nobody has the authority to change the rules for papal election, except for a new Pope, who cannot be elected because there are no valid Cardinals to elect him.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Era Might

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 18 2005, 05:11 PM']There are a lot of inherent problems with sedevacantism.

For example, let's suppose they're right. There has not been a Pope since 1958.

Only Cardinals can elect a Pope.

I don't believe there are any Cardinals left over from the reign of Pius XII.

Hence, there is no possible way for a Pope to be elected. Nobody has the authority to change the rules for papal election, except for a new Pope, who cannot be elected because there are no valid Cardinals to elect him.
[right][snapback]689441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[zabbazooey]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 18 2005, 05:11 PM']There are a lot of inherent problems with sedevacantism.

For example, let's suppose they're right. There has not been a Pope since 1958.

Only Cardinals can elect a Pope.

I don't believe there are any Cardinals left over from the reign of Pius XII.

Hence, there is no possible way for a Pope to be elected. Nobody has the authority to change the rules for papal election, except for a new Pope, who cannot be elected because there are no valid Cardinals to elect him.
[right][snapback]689441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Shazam.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 18 2005, 04:49 PM']I haven't seen this discussed anywhere on the web.  I don't know if we have any traditionalists/sedevacantists who will participate.

I was thinking a bit ago.  The traditionalsists/sedevacantists have a problem.  It's called Unam Sanctum.  They do not believe there is a current Bishop of Rome.  Now here is the problem.  Unam Sanctum says:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Now how does one get around not having to be subject to a Pope.  Is there some sort of a doctrine/dogma in the canons of the Church that says if there is no pope for x amount of days this statement is null and void.  Something like the "invincible ignorance" doctrines which they deny?  What let's them off the hook for this statement from US.  Further it would seem that if the Holy Spirit had guided the Pope to make a statement and the trad interprutation of such statements is correct, then the Holy Spirit would have always ensured that the gates of hell would not prevail (i.e. there would always be a roman pontiff.  ).  Of course the HS did.

Thoughts?
[right][snapback]689407[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Is Unam Sanctum suppose to be infallible? If not, there's no problem.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 18 2005, 05:52 PM']RESPONSE:

Is Unam Sanctum suppose to be infallible? If not, there's no problem.
[right][snapback]689510[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


There is a problem because the trads would say it is infallible.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Antipopes like "Pius XIII" have made the claim that if all the cardinals die, then the papal election would default to the [really] old custom of election by the faithful or something...

Edited August 18, 2005 by thedude

[qfnol31]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 18 2005, 05:54 PM']There is a problem because the trads would say it is infallible.
[right][snapback]689514[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I kinda take offense to half this thread. Oh well.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 18 2005, 06:56 PM']I kinda take offense to half this thread.    Oh well.
[right][snapback]689573[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Are you a traditinoalist? Sorry for the use of the short form, trad. I also would say that US is not fallible even though I would not hold it as strictly infallible. It is authoritative and understood properly I hold to what it says. Why were you offended?

[qfnol31]

I think that you generalized too much...

[thessalonian]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 18 2005, 07:06 PM']I think that you generalized too much...
[right][snapback]689584[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


My apologies to any traditioalists who are loyal to the Pope.

[popestpiusx]

You definately need to better define your terms. Traditionalist is a rather broad therm these days, though I would suggest that one cannot actually be outside the Church and still call himself a traditionalist.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 18 2005, 08:39 PM']You definately need to better define your terms.  Traditionalist is a rather broad therm these days, though I would suggest that one cannot actually be outside the Church and still call himself a traditionalist.
[right][snapback]689724[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I clarified above. Those who reject the current Popes are the ones I am talking about.

Edited August 19, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

Pope Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctum: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

But members of the Jewish faith, Islamic faith, and Protestants are not subject to the Pope. Does this mean that they are all going to hell?

But the Second Vatican Council changed this inflexible teaching thus:

“The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

So Vatican II, an ecumenical council disagrees with Pope Boniface that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[Aloysius]

it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the successor of St. Peter. Traditional Catholic Teaching holds that only two things send a person to hell:

original sin
mortal sin

and for a mortal sin to be mortal, you must have three factors: 1) grave matter 2) full consent of the will 3) knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.

therefore, one condemns himself who refuses to submit to the Roman Pontiff. that's what Boniface is saying.

Vatican II is saying that IF (and that's a big IF) someone is ignorant that this is necessary through no fault of their own, then they have not condemned themself by refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.