It is currently Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:02 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protestant 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protestant
Some sedeplenists object that sedevacantists are Protestant because they seem to deny the papacy by denying a particular man is the pope. But the stronger objection would be to accuse sedevacantists for believing something like this:
Quote:
The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 [:42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek…all of which mean rock… Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.”

In plain…one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then, I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.” For…the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,” and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts… says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell…This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words….[ii]
(source)

Namely, that sedevacantists believe the Church is founded on St. Peter's (or his successor's) faith, not on the man himself.

How do sedevacantists answer this objection/accusation?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protesta
Alan Aversa wrote:
Some sedeplenists object that sedevacantists are Protestant because they seem to deny the papacy by denying a particular man is the pope. But the stronger objection would be to accuse sedevacantists for believing something like this:
Quote:
The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 [:42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek…all of which mean rock… Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.”

In plain…one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then, I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.” For…the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,” and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts… says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell…This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words….[ii]
(source)

Namely, that sedevacantists believe the Church is founded on St. Peter's (or his successor's) faith, not on the man himself.

How do sedevacantists answer this objection/accusation?


Is this accusation coming from the same people who are pointing out that Martin Luther is more Catholic than "Pope" Francis?


Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protesta
Alan Aversa wrote:
How do sedevacantists answer this objection/accusation?


Sometimes one begins to imagine that those people have some interest in Doctrine. But then one realises that no, they don't, they're only interested in politics and debate. It's a sport. If they took it seriously, they'd notice that most of the bishops they recognise as Catholics are open heretics. We're the least of their problems. Tell them to come and talk to us when they have a Church in which Doctrine matters.

It's not even clear what the objection is. The text you quote is typical Protestant misinterpretation of that famous passage, but with an ironic twist. It's very common for them to claim that Our Lord meant to say, "You, Simon, are a (relative) rock (but) on This Rock, Myself, I will build my Church." It's an awkward interpretation, to say the least, but very common. The next part is pretty weird, however. << "You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then, I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.” For…the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,” and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” >>

Ironic, because this writer here essentially admits that the usual Protestant objection is without cogency. The Church agrees that Christ is The Rock, just as He is The Christ, and that Simon Bar Jonah is a "rock" (petrus) precisely because and insofar as he is in Christ and with Christ, primarily by Faith. Nobody disputes that Our Lord is the "head of the corner" and the ultimate foundation of the Church, the question is what did He mean by saying that He would build upon "this rock"? He means that He builds His Church upon this "relative rock" Simon Peter. But by admitting that Simon Peter is rightly called "Rock" and even "Christ" the whole force of the Protestant misinterpretation evaporates. The Church doesn't claim, has never claimed, that Peter is the ultimate foundation of the Church - absit! - but rather that he is the Vicar, the assistant, of Christ, and the chief of His assistants here on earth, the (relative) rock upon which the Church is founded and rises to its perfection. In this we see another of those beautiful examples of God's wisdom, choosing the weak things of this world to confound the strong, building an infallible Church upon a fallible sinner. This Protestant denies the special role of Peter in order to claim that Our Lord builds the Church on no particular man, but on any Christian who happens to be "faithful." This is not even compatible with the very next words, in which Our Lord adds His promise that Peter's faith will fail not. And of course, the notion that He will "confirm" his brethren loses all cogency. If his role isn't unique, why the promise and why the instruction to confirm others?

The problem for Novus apologists is precisely that Peter is the principle of the twofold unity of the Church, in faith and charity, and the series of Conciliar popes have been dissolvents of the Church in both faith and charity. Look around.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protesta
ClemensMaria wrote:
Is this accusation coming from the same people who are pointing out that Martin Luther is more Catholic than "Pope" Francis?
not necessarily

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protesta
This (from the SD thread) seems to be a good answer:
Quote:
The Church is founded not on St. Peter himself, the man, but on the office of the papacy that gave St. Peter, the man, the authority to bind and loose, to govern the Church, and to confirm his brethren in the Faith.

SVists deny no part of this. In fact, they believe it so strongly that they reject any man who would use these powers to the ruin of the Church. It is not the man that makes the Church, lest the Church be said to die with the man; rather, it is the Church that makes the man, so that the office endures even in the absence of the office holder.

Protestants distinguish between St. Peter and St. Peter's faith; SVists (like all Catholics have and should) distinguish between the office and the office holder. There is a big difference.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Last edited by Alan Aversa on Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:39 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protesta
Hmmm. The powers of the papacy are personal. Your correspondent needs to read some of the debates from Vatican I. It's not right to say, "The Church is founded not on St. Peter himself, the man, but on the office of the papacy that gave St. Peter, the man, the authority to bind and loose, to govern the Church, and to confirm his brethren in the Faith." The Church absolutely is founded upon St. Peter, the man. The office exists without the occupant, but it not in the same way that it exists when occupied. As I think Franzelin put it, the Church is owed a pope when there isn't one; she is due one, by her nature, and one must inevitably come. Without a pope she is incomplete, stunted, disabled. The Gallicans expended a lot of effort in distinguishing the man and the office so as to place infallibility in the office and allow for a fallible pope every now and again. This was obviously totally repudiated by the Church in 1870, and one element of this was to emphasise recisely that the powers of the papacy are personal to the pope. They are his powers, not some powers that he has access to when he chooses. They belong to him, they are intrinsic to his acts.

With defenders like this fellow, we don't need enemies!

Quote:
SVists deny no part of this. In fact, they believe it so strongly that they reject any man who would use these powers to the ruin of the Church. It is not the man that makes the Church, lest the Church be said to die with the man; rather, it is the Church that makes the man, so that the office endures even in the absence of the office holder.


We deny his whole approach. It's contrary to Roman theology. The pope is a mini-church, containing within himself the seeds of the entire Church. All jurisdiction comes via him. It is much more orthodox and safe to say that the pope makes the Church than to insist that the Church makes the pope. She doesn't make the pope in any sense except that she designates the man that Christ appoints as pope. This fellow sounds like Bishop Williamson and all of the other Gallican-minded traditionalists who offer a vague infallibility-over-time as an alternative to the actual infallibility at every moment of the Catholic Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: answering the objection that sedevacantists are Protesta
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
SVists deny no part of this. In fact, they believe it so strongly that they reject any man who would use these powers to the ruin of the Church. It is not the man that makes the Church, lest the Church be said to die with the man; rather, it is the Church that makes the man, so that the office endures even in the absence of the office holder.


We deny his whole approach. It's contrary to Roman theology. The pope is a mini-church, containing within himself the seeds of the entire Church. All jurisdiction comes via him. It is much more orthodox and safe to say that the pope makes the Church than to insist that the Church makes the pope. She doesn't make the pope in any sense except that she designates the man that Christ appoints as pope. This fellow sounds like Bishop Williamson and all of the other Gallican-minded traditionalists who offer a vague infallibility-over-time as an alternative to the actual infallibility at every moment of the Catholic Church.
Yes, as in Bishop Williamson's recent EC entitled "Popes Fallible."

It smacks of collegiality to say "it is the Church that makes the man" (pope).

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:49 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.