Post by arboriscitri78 on Nov 4, 2015 5:19:03 GMT
The First Vatican Council declared that 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."
Read like a declaration, it reads like "it is 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; [and] that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy."
It seems that Vatican 1 defined that Peter, the first pope, will have perpetual successors, meaning that there will always be a succession of Popes without any vacancies in between(besides the obvious case of interregnums) until the end of the world. It would seem to me that this very declaration alone is sufficient to destroy the sedevacantist theory and prove it as absolutely false. However, I don't hear this arguement used very often when sedevacantism is being refuted. Why is this? Is it not a valid statement? Am I missing something here?
"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."
Read like a declaration, it reads like "it is 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; [and] that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy."
It seems that Vatican 1 defined that Peter, the first pope, will have perpetual successors, meaning that there will always be a succession of Popes without any vacancies in between(besides the obvious case of interregnums) until the end of the world. It would seem to me that this very declaration alone is sufficient to destroy the sedevacantist theory and prove it as absolutely false. However, I don't hear this arguement used very often when sedevacantism is being refuted. Why is this? Is it not a valid statement? Am I missing something here?
