De Profundis
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Question: Does the priest (any) have the authority to do this?
DefendTruth
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Video here: Gone to far? What do you think?
Joséphine Cyr
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Fr. Altman goes down the sedevacantist path. He's responsible for his actions, of course, but I also blame his bishop for essentially kicking him to the curb for political reasons.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
All Catholics are sedevacantist every time a pope dies.
The last 60 years have given the Church a false understanding of the position of sedevacancy. For many, it's a position that must never, ever, be held, because it's synonymous with schism. In fact, that's not true.
The Church cannot be without a Pontiff for 60 years. But it can be without one for a shorter, extended period of time. Perhaps …More
All Catholics are sedevacantist every time a pope dies.
The last 60 years have given the Church a false understanding of the position of sedevacancy. For many, it's a position that must never, ever, be held, because it's synonymous with schism. In fact, that's not true.
The Church cannot be without a Pontiff for 60 years. But it can be without one for a shorter, extended period of time. Perhaps even as long as a generation.
There are many reasons to believe that Francis might not be a legitimate pope. The issue of heresy is just one of many. If his election was not valid, then the correct position is one of sedevacancy, since December 31, 2022. If the resignation of Benedict XVI was not valid (and there are serious reasons for believing that it wasn't), then Francis election was also not valid. If there was any pressure put on by outside forces for certain cardinals to select Bergoglion, then his election was invalid (and that would mean we are currently without a pope).
These are all questions that official Church law and Apostolic Tradition should bring up.
For myself, I don't know. But I do know there is reason, and room, for doubt.
The last 60 years have given the Church a false understanding of the position of sedevacancy. For many, it's a position that must never, ever, be held, because it's synonymous with schism. In fact, that's not true.
The Church cannot be without a Pontiff for 60 years. But it can be without one for a shorter, extended period of time. Perhaps even as long as a generation.
There are many reasons to believe that Francis might not be a legitimate pope. The issue of heresy is just one of many. If his election was not valid, then the correct position is one of sedevacancy, since December 31, 2022. If the resignation of Benedict XVI was not valid (and there are serious reasons for believing that it wasn't), then Francis election was also not valid. If there was any pressure put on by outside forces for certain cardinals to select Bergoglion, then his election was invalid (and that would mean we are currently without a pope).
These are all questions that official Church law and Apostolic Tradition should bring up.
For myself, I don't know. But I do know there is reason, and room, for doubt.
The modern understanding of Sedevacantism is that the Pope reigning from St. Peter's Chair is not the Pope. Now we may privately doubt this. But we cannot declare. Does Father James Altman have the authority to declare? No, he does not. Moreover, he is in danger of turning a private conclusion into a dogma = new religion.