There have been many to state and try to refute the true traditionalist position concerning "perpetual successors of Peter" but without any avail, such as Fr Stepanich, who erroneously interprets Vatican I. Clearly, Vatican I, was teaching Peter would have TRUE and perpetual papal successors and was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless. Perpetual in this case, referring to Peter and his successors, means endless but also means uninterrupted. Meaning there is no allowance for the theory of Pius XII being the last true Pope with a 50+year of interruption of antipopes. Antipopes, oppose a true Pope! Where or who is the Pope then? Therefore, it is not applied just to the Papacy but is to be interpreted as referring to Peter and his successors as such. We have had periods of sedevacantism due to politics not an invalid "usurp"(50 years) of the Throne which Vatican I does not obviously permit. The Vatican II Popes are validly elected. Sedes are objectively speaking anathema. Infallible doctrine properly interpreted, always overrules fallible theological opinions, even from the Saints/Doctors. Having said this I love all modernists and sedevacanists :) We must unify over Vatican II being a null and void council with a "New Mass" that also needs plucked out! Its semantics to argue over a Pope who we can not follow. Recognize and resist! It is found in church history(Arian Crisis/Pope Honorius) do not let any modernist or sedevacanist tell you otherwise it is written in stone as precedence.... Ave Maria!
Vatican I Dogma:
Therefore,
if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.
Merriam Webster dictionary:
Origin of PERPETUAL
Middle English perpetuel, from Anglo-French, from Latin perpetuus uninterrupted, from per- through + petere to go to — more at feather
First Known Use: 14th century
No comments:
Post a Comment