I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century
I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.
Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).
(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)
Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.
Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.
Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?
In direct contradiction with Vatican I:
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood
Do you see that? and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors
for ever he lives in his successors. If there isnt a successor anymore, and forever, bye bye Vatican I.
5. 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
I guess according to you perpetual does not mean perpetual.
no you are wronghttp://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
That what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) remains the perpetual principle
and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND WHEN THERE IS NO POPE, is proven
every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the
The Catholic (who is a sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the
Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t accept what Christ
instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not accepting what the successors
of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history (the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example
of how the Office of the Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle
of visible unity, distinguishing the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the
false). This is true when there is no pope, and for the sedevacantist today. This dogmatic
teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a pope and it is not contrary to the
sedevacantist thesis in any way.
In fact, while this definition remains true for the sedevacantist, it must be stated clearly that THIS
DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ONLY REMAINS TRUE FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST. THIS
DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON THE PAPACY BEING THE PERPETUAL PRINCIPLE AND
VISIBLE FOUNDATION OF UNITY IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT TRUE FOR THOSE UNDER
BENEDICT XVI. This teaching of Vatican I only remains true for the sedevacantist (not those
under Benedict XVI) because Vatican II teaches just the opposite:
Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (# 15):
“For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though
baptized and so honoured with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety
or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.” 43
We see that Vatican II teaches that the Papacy is not the visible foundation of the unities of faith
and communion. It teaches that those who reject the Papacy are in communion with the Church.
Since this is the official teaching of the Vatican II sect and its antipopes, those who adhere to them
contradict the above teaching of Vatican I.
Second, the teaching of Vatican I on the perpetuity of the Papal Office only remains true for the
sedevacantist because Benedict XVI explicitly teaches that accepting the Papacy is not essential
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “On the part of the West,
the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of
Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in
practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches... As regards
Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the
Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants
be converted to Catholicism;... none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of
We’ve already shown – but it was necessary to quote it again here – that Benedict XVI specifically
mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the
Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith and accept Vatican I
(“the full scope of the definition of 1870”) for unity and salvation. He specifically rejects that the
dogmatic definition of Vatican I (accepting the Papacy, etc.) is binding for Church unity. Besides
the fact that this is another clear example of manifest heresy from the Vatican II antipopes, this
proves that BENEDICT XVI (THE MAN THEY ACTUALLY CLAIM IS THE “POPE”) DENIES
THE VERY DOGMA FROM VATICAN I THAT THIS OBJECTION BRINGS FORWARD!