@foward
Visible Catholic Unity is Based on Subordination to Divine Apostolic Heirarchal Authority
"Invisible Catholic Unity" is a False Protestant Doctrine.
"Resistance" and "Sedevacantist" Catholics Have Swallowed the Deadly Poison of ArchProtestant Martin Luther ie:
The Original Sin of Private Judgement
From the Infallible Dogmatic Statements of Vatican I:
"We teach and declare that, according to the Gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord.… That which our lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time…
"Therefore, whoever succeeds to the Chair of Peter obtains by the …More
I think you are right BRHenry that some have “privately judged” the seat to be vacant, elevating their conclusions to virtual dogmas.
I think others have a grave suspicion that these may in fact not be true shepherds, based off the constant stream of heterodoxy issuing forth from them.
From what I can gather, the Sedes put Catholic dogma as the first “sine qua non” whereas others like yourself put authority as their “sine qua non.”
But the Catholic Church has always operated under both of these principles. Today’s predicament (and that of the last 60-70 years) is that we are in uncharted territory.
@Anthony November Yes, in a sense, the sede position respects Dogma more than the resistance position, declaring that "resistance" is never an option. But, both positions are false as they absolutely require Personal Private Judgement to maintain their positions. This Private Judgement usurps the Divine Apostolic Authority to definitively elect and seat a Roman Pontiff (sede) or usurp the Divine Apostolic Authority to Govern the Church (resistance). It is rebellion against Divine Apostolic Heirarchal Authority. With that said, it is obvious to most faithful Catholics that the Barque of St. Peter is being tossed about in a category five hurricane with water coming in at every corner and the situation is grave. But, Deo gratias, Our Blessed LORD has promised the Barque of St. Peter will never, ever sink!
You know BRHenry, the sedes would say they accept that dogma 100%. And because of that dogma they cannot accept Leo or Francis as legitimate popes.
They certainly fantasize that they accept this Dogma. But the sede has "Privately Judged" the seat to be vacant, thus disregarding the fact that there is a Divine Apostolic Heirarchal Authority which governs that vital question. It is never based on Private Judgement. Therefore, they certainly deny the Dogma.
@brhenry I don't quite understand how one can conclude that a reasoned and thoughtful questioning of the legitimacy of the man sitting in the See of Peter is a violation of dogma. Anybody who did that during the summer of 1085 was 100% correct.
Please, consider carefully, the case of Clement III and Gregory VII.
Guibert of Ravenna was, on March 24, 1084, enthroned as Pope in the church of St. John Lateran, taking the name Clement III, and reigned as putative pope from Rome. He died on Sept. 8, 1100.
(True) Pope Gregory VII died on May 25, 1085, and (True) Pope Victor III was installed a day short of one year later, on May 24, 1086.
So, during that year that the actual See of Peter was vacant, but being ruled from Rome by "Clement III," would it not have been a "private judgment" to recognize the See as being truly vacant (which it was), even though it was putatively and apparently occupied?
Does this mean that Guibert of Ravenna was not actually an antipope until he was formally recognized as such by Pope Paschal II some 14 years later in 1100? Having not yet been declared an antipope, would the dogma of Vatican I have required allegiance to Guibert of Ravenna (even though he was an antipope) up until 1100?
@occasnltrvlr "Private Judgement" in matters of Faith, Morals & Jurisdiction (Governance) of the Church always violates Dogma, as stated in VI. Only Divine Apostolic Heirarchal Authority has the legitimate authority to make a definitive judgement, even if that judgement is nullified by subsequent legitimate authority (happens in secular legal decisions frequently when rulings are overturned). Obviously, the notion that every Catholic has a universal right(or even duty) to judge the legitimacy of doctrines regarding Faith, Morals or of Church Jurisdiction is the very essence of "Modernism," which began with the ArchModernist, Martin Luther and continues today with all who, based on "Private Judgement," "protest" by separating from the Divinely Ordained Apostolic Church Jurisdiction ("structures" or "Seats of Authority").
What brhenry is saying @occasnltrvlr , is exactly what many pharisees (and im not saying brhenry is one, but he is using blind obedience, and such obedience was at fault when Apostle Paul was killing Christians), pharisees said when, high priest Caifas, heard from the mouth of a simple fisherman follower of Jesus: "we need to obey God rather than men", for such a thing WE NEED to judge the fruits from those who claim to be our shepherds, Jesus did say to check the fruits, if a bishop or a pope goes against the revealed Truth, we shouldn’t follow such.
@brhenry - employing the ad hominem fallacy suggests you can't refute a statement.