The true Pope is the successor of St. Peter. St. Peter settled his See at Rome. Therefore, a true Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Yet St. Peter's first See was at Antioch. Furthermore, some doctors of the Church teach that in the end times, the See of Peter will be moved to Jerusalem.

Assuming that they are correct, how would this take place?

Would not a true pope have to move the See to Jerusalem after he assumed the office?

Others teach that the See of Peter must remain at Rome until the end of time.

So, which opinion is most likely to be correct?

Any source? I´d love to read about it. A reference is ok.

Thanks Ken!

Cristian

Ken, I'll be more blunt than Cristian. Please cite the references or quote the sources. Preferably the latter.

Hee hee!

I understood Cristian's comment all right. It is exactly the same as yours.

OK. I'll have to dig them out and will post them here as soon as I find them again.

In the meantime, let me rephrase the question: is it possible for a true Pope to move the See of Peter to another place, given that St. Peter moved his See from Antioch to Rome?

I guess what I am trying to determine is if it is even possible that the See of Peter could be moved when necessary. Learning the answer to this question would clarify whether or not my sources are accurate, or simply wishful thinking on their part.

In the meantime, I'll dig them out. As I remember it, one place I read this was in Huchede's book on the Anti-Christ.

I think there are several different questions here:

1) Whether the Pope may go to live somewhere else.

2) Whether the city of Rome may be destroyed and if so, how may the Pope still be called "the Bishop of Rome".

3) Whether the Pope may changes his title "Bishop of Rome" unto "Bishop of NN" and leaving the former, in such a way as to say for instance "now the Bishop of (let´s say) Jerusalem is the Pope" in the same was as now we say "the Bishop of Rome is the Pope".

You see what I mean?

I believe you mean the third question?

Cristian

PS: I think there is an issue of Fenton on this but I couldn´t find it.

Hi Ken, it's been a long time, I hope all is well?

I know that you are aware that seven popes lived in Avignon, France from 1309 to 1376. It seems to me that a pope can in fact reside somewhere else other than Rome and still be the bishop of Rome. If I am not mistaken, titular bishops have Sees' in places other than where they reside.

Like Avignon...



I had not thought of that: what I was thinking of was that Rome would drive the Pope out and become the seat of Anti-Christ.



Of course.



Yes. I did. Thanks.



That would be interesting to read. I'll do some digging.

Thanks, Cristian.

Hello again, Lance. It is sure good to hear from you. We have not been in touch since the Dimonds tried to entice us into a debate.

Yes, other than recovering from the worst virus I have suffered in about 5 years, we are doing well. I hope you are also.



Yes. This last is true, and I had not thought to apply it in this case. I just read the other day that those titular bishops hold sees that no longer exist physically as they were destroyed in one way or another. I suppose the same thing could hold true for the Bishop of Rome.

Pius XII in one of His speeches (January 30, 1949) said that if the city of Rome were destroyed the Pope would still be "the Bishop of Rome".
I don´t see any theological problem with the Antichrist having Rome as his seat.



It is disputed among theologians whether the See of Rome is annexed to the Primacy by divine law or human law, and depending the answer you give to this question, you´ll have your answer. It seems most of the theologians said it was annexed iure divino in such a way as not even the Pope would be able to change the See.



You are welcome!

Perhaps the authors you have in mind say the Pope will be living in Jerusalem at the time of the Antichrist? (but still being the Bishop of Rome?)

Cristian

Sorry for the repetition ... John could you just leave the last one, please?

Thanks.
I´m sleepy.

Cristian

All set Cristian.....I guess you were tired!

Lance

Thanks! Yes... instead of editing I quoted...

That's right, I believe, but can't somebody post a representative text? Yes, I can do so, but that's hardly the point. If I have to post the texts, then we might as well not have a forum at all. I can just publish things.

What we all appreciate is discussion conducted with a modicum of scholarship (not academic standards, just something which is robust enough to be useful to souls). Please, this is not SedeQueen or FishSedes.

Sorry if I sound impatient, but let's do this in a worthwhile way or not bother at all.

You are totally right! My apologies.

Cristian

Ok, I got it! Here we go!

What I was looking for is found in one of Fenton´s best issues (needless to say, my personal opinion) "The Local Church of Rome" (June, 1950) which may be seen here http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... recnum=608

Fenton says:


A quick resume of the authors:

I) In favour of this being Iure Divino:

1) Alvaro Pelayo: "the Prince of the Apostles transferred his See from Antioch to Rome "iubente Domino," (at the commandment of the Lord) and that the location of the principal seat of the Christian priesthood in the "caput et domina totius mundi" was to be attributed to Divine Providence."

2) Turrecremata: "a special command of Christ had made Rome the primatial See of the Catholic Church."

3) Cajetan: "St. Peter established his See at Rome by Our Lord's express command."

4) St. Robert: "it is most probable and pie credendum "that the See has been established at Rome by divine and immutable precept."

5) G. of Valentia: "taught that Soto's opinion on this subject was singularis nec vero satis tuta" (unique and not very secure)

6) Adam Tanner: "the supreme authority to govern the Church has been inseparably joined to the Roman See by direct and divine institution and law," though not a doctrine of faith, was still something which could not be denied absque temeritate (without being rash)

7) Suarez: "it seems more probable and "pious" to say that St. Peter had joined the primacy over the entire Church militant to the See of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own precept and will."

8) Francis Sylvius.

9) Wiggers.

10) Pope Benedict XIV: "St. Peter had chosen the Roman Church either at Our Lord's command, or on his own authority, acting under divine inspiration or guidance."

11) Billuart: "Rome was chosen as a result of Our Lord's own direct instruction."

12) John Perrone: "no human authority could transfer the primacy over the universal Church from the See of Rome."

13) Dominic Palmieri: " it is probable that St. Peter received a divinely revealed mandate to establish his See permanently at Rome"

14) Cardinal Franzelin and 15) Bishops Felder and 16) D'Herbigny: "St. Peter's final choice of Rome was brought about by a movement of divine grace or inspiration of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of any transfer of the primatial See from Rome at any subsequent time."

17) Cardinal Billot: "Rome holds its position dispositione divina (by divine disposition), and that this thesis, though not yet defined, was unquestionably capable of definition."

18) Gerard Paris: "it is more probably the primacy over the universal Church was joined to the episcopate of Rome iure divino, saltem indirecto. (at least indirectly)"



To these authors we may add, I think, Pius XII who said in his Christmas message of 1947: "Didn´t we see upon this sacred ground of Rome, where divine will has established the See of Peter..." (the original Italian here http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2040%20[1948]%20-%20ocr.pdf page 14).


II) Against this teaching:

1) Dominic Soto: "the fixing of the primatial See at Rome was attributable only to St. Peter, in his capacity as the head of the universal Church... holding that any one of St. Peter's successors in the Supreme Pontificate could, if he so chose, transfer the primatial See to some other city, in exactly the same way and with exactly the same authority St. Peter had used in bringing the primacy from Antioch to Rome."

2) Melchoir Cano: "since there is no scriptural evidence in favor of any divine command that the primatial See should have been established in Rome, St. Peter's transfer from Antioch to Rome must be attributed only to St. Peter's own choice"

3) Saiz Ruiz

4) Calcagno


And one of the consequences of this union by divine law between the See of Rome and the Primacy is the following:



But this is another story I guess... in any case, I suspect what the authors you are going to provide Ken, merely say that the Pope will be in Jerusalem at the end times?

Just wondering!

Cristian

Wow! Talk about authorities!

And yes, the authors I am digging out (as soon as I am over this darned virus) say that according to various early Church Fathers, that in the end times, the Pope will be living in Jerusalem. However, as I recall, none of these have the stature of those you have quoted from.

To take a bit of a "side road" for a moment: we have been contacted, over the years, by a small number of people who have visited our website, http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com. Some very few were hostile. However, the majority were very supportive, and in some cases, have become what I can only term, close friends, although we have never met them in person. They live in various places in the world, including the Eastern Coast of the U.S., Korea, Belgium, Georgia (in the former USSR), Malta, the UK, France, etc. We have, however, spoken with several repeatedly by telephone. The most surprising thing about these people is that almost all of them are very young, in their teen age years, or just out of them. Every one of them show wisdom far beyond their years. To me, this bodes well for the Church.

The quote below is from one of those, a young man who lives in Belgium, and who is suffering from X-ALD and Addison's disease (look them up: they are pretty terrible). This young man sent me the following this morning. I think you will find it of interest.

"I was just reading your topic on Bellarmine Forums regarding whether it is
possible that the See of Rome could be translated to another territory. My
belief is that this is not possible. Mgr. Fenton wrote that when the Popes
dwelt in Avignon, the See still stood in Rome but was impeded. I believe
that when Our Lady foretold that Rome would "become the seat of
anti-christ", She merely meant material Rome, and a material chair, but
not the Apostolic See, which is a moral entity and which cannot be stained
by an usurper. So, today material Rome is being profaned by usurpers, but
the See remains pure and unshaken. While the Church is a visible body, the
Apostolic See as a moral entity is not.

In the exorcism prayer of Pope Leo XIII to St. Michael, the Holy Father
stated that there "where the See of Truth has been set up for the light of
the world, there the enemy has planted the throne of his abominable
impiety." This means that the devil does not sit in the Roman See, but has
set up his throne against it (in front of it, one could say) in the Roman
territory. I believe that this is an important distinction to be made. It
is possible that the Pope dwells, or will dwell, in Jerusalem, but the See
will not be translated there.

Cardinal Franzelin has also shed light upon the Roman See as a moral
entity."

So, you see, despite all the, what I call "excess verbiage" the answer to my question appears to be quite simple: "No."

I tend to believe something like this also.



Very interesting! I agree!

Well, today, since I appear to be on the mend from this past virus, I decided to look up the references that John and Cristian asked me for at the beginning of this discussion. So, I went to our "library" to dig out the books from which I expected to find the necessary references.

Well, our oldest daughter is handicapped, being 27 years old, but only being about 5 years old both emotionally and intellectually.

She has been, unbeknownst to me, taking all our physically smaller books from their proper places, and using them for "backing" for the pictures and cards she writes and draws, which, although not a real problem for the books, since she has finally stopped ripping pages out of them, but also since she never puts them back where she found them, but instead drops them in obscure places in our home, I am going to have to track them down before I can fulfill my duty to you all here.

Obviously, it will be a few more days before I can post that information.

Sorry for the delay.

Ken, great story!

I once spent hours sellotaping my Catholic Encyclopedia Index volume pages back together after a two-year-old (I won't say which one) pulled out twenty or thirty pages and reduced each of them to pieces no larger than a postage stamp. I'm still missing one stamp-sized piece.

miscellaneous

Thank you for that. I have the book by Abbo and Hannon and will read up on that a bit.

However, can one completely trust Journet, since he accepted the Red Hat from an antipope?

Dear Ken,

I think it isn't a matter of trusting him, so much as assessing his theological weight. He wasn't much good, I think, very average. However in this case he is stating what is common doctrine. The pope may dwell elsewhere, but he is still Bishop of Rome.

Which would automatically mean that one must read theologians of more "weight" in order to check on the value of anything he wrote....which is a waste of effort as far as I am concerned. Far safer and less taxing to simply ignore everything he ever wrote.



Yes. Agreed. Not only from the writings of the accepted and authoritative theologians, but from common sense.

Well the problem with the comment that Mr. Gordon is making is in my humble opinion. Is he a "trustworthy" theologian since he accepted the Red Hat from a anti-Pope. Like many people admire the life of the Archbishop, but because they somehow see he made a "mistake" as they see it, it takes away the merits of his past life. Saint Vincent Ferrer was rooting for an anti-Pope possibly and as we all well know the Catholic Encyclopedia has not "settled the matter." Contrary to what most people believe, and there are some that even speculate that there maybe was no true Pope during that period (even if there was not the indefectibility of the Church was never lost). Yet, we know with infallible certainty that there were many Saints in the controversy some of great weight on both sides and it still took a great deal of time to resolve. The devil works hard, and what I fail to see is how him having accepted what you seem to be so "obvious to you" takes away the logic of his arguments. Also by the way it is also a logical fallacy (several of them Ad Hominem etc...), and I am sure that none of the Scholastic's would of carried any weight to your argumentation. They were reasonable, and never disdained true reason. In my humble opinion it is not a waste of time, since logically speaking there would be no theologians past Vatican II that you can refer to. Which means that even if there was someone you can refer to that lived past Vatican II you would automatically discount him, since he probably fell for the "same" trap that everyone else fell for. These theologians that were good, never asked for these novelties to be imposed on them for the most part. They shunned all of those novelties and to quote the Archbishop would of given up their very lives to fix the problem. Even if they are not reliable anymore, it does not destroy completely something good that they wrote in the past. Karl Rahner (among many other things) edited several editions of Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger) the very same book that we all use in these forums to destroy modernist. Now I don't recommend whatsoever for a layman to read anything that is beyond questionable, but as John Lane made these forums so that we can be able to pursue deeper questions with greater erudition (without any bias). Sometimes such author's do help in the cause of truth despite maybe, they support for Vatican II in their later years which as sad as it maybe. It kind of reminds me of Father De Pauw you would of thought that a priest with three Phd's would of "seen it", yet he still supported as a Chaplain the cultic sect of the Order Of Saint John (the heretical Knights of Malta). Yet Fr. De Pauw did say lots of true things especially very early on when the silence was deafening. If anyone is interested in knowing a little further about that please PM me, I can get you some information on that.

Ultimately John Lane's and John Daly's articles are very good on the matter (on being rash when condemning sedeplenist's) which I am sure you have read.

Now sure, there are certainly more perfect ways of handling things and I am sure that most Bishop's have not only apostasized after Vatican II because in their own heart they wanted to hear these new novelties. I have personally heard a Maronite priest tell me that over +90% of the Bishop's are not only not even Catholic nominally, but have auto-excommunicated themselves over many times (even by the New Code of Canon Law). Is it really that necessary to Sedevacantism, of the New Rite of Consecration to be invalid? When no one contest the blasphemous heretical itching novelties that come out of their apostate mouth's.

In your loving zeal to the faith, which I know you love very much Mr. Gordon as does everyone in this forum. I have yet to see so many people, to attempt to labor so much to learn their faith better than the Sedevacantist. I believe if everyone would of had that same zeal, we would of already solved most of the crisis. You notice that the places where there was more vigilant faithful, and teachers of truth they were not as devastated, this is certainly not a coincidence. However, you see the Conclavist which in their zeal for truth, go to the simplest method of solving the problem. There must always be a prudent zeal, measured with true piety and knowledge only then will we be able not to cause more scandal in the Church then there is already. Which is something that Thuc or any other Bishop has not done, other than Archbishop Lefebvre whether he was right or NOT, ultimately we should attempt to emulate at the very least his approach which certainly is Catholic.

There are many that use Vatican II as an excuse for everything. I see it in the Novus Ordo camp, and also in the traditionalist circles. With the Novus Ordoites they simply just long and sigh for more novelties. They get desperate that things are not moving as fast "as they want their reform to be." They will also cry out with the traditionalist that the "Church needs reform", even back in the days of St. Pius X all the avowed modernist's were crying out for reform. However, we know that they all have been condemned as solemnly as it can get, and that they were wrong. Let us never use a pretense of the circumstances we are in, to excuse ourselves so liberally and break all Church law since in a time of necessity everything that is illicit is now made licit. This is the most dangerous mindset that bewails traditionalist, and can definitely lead to destruction and has to so many people as it self-evident if you look around. If there was a "true" Pope, we would no longer have to learn the faith or live as virtuous. Everything is now "resolved", but things are not as simple as we always wish Divine Providence has confounded the wise many times before! God's ways are not our ways, let us with meekness recourse to the loving truth which the Church has given us for sustenance and ask no more or less than what is required of us to assent. God Bless you friend, keep it up.