Novus ordo
apologists often accuse sedevacantists of heresy for allegedly denying the
perpetual succession of Saint Peter. More ink has been wasted refuting this
allegation than the matter deserves. Here, I'll limit myself to explaining the
difference between perpetual successors and perpetual successors in the primacy
and their implications concerning the necessity of a reigning pope at all times
and the possibility of a prolonged vacancy.
|
PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS |
PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS IN THE PRIMACY |
|
If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of
Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual
successors |
If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of
Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual
successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff
is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be
anathema. |
|
It implies that there will always be a pope at any given moment. |
Explains that the
primacy perdures equally in all successors of Saint Peter. |
PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS
Our opponents often
misread this passage, omitting the particle 'in the
primacy', which is crucial to the correct interpretation of the text. A little
error at the beginning leads to a great one in the end. As they start with an
incorrect assumption, what follows is a fallacious argument with no substance.
Here is how they misread the Vatican Council:
If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successorsin the primacyover the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema. (D. 1825)
If they were right, this passage could imply that there will always be a reigning pope , which would necessarily rule out the possibility of a prolonged vacancy.
PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS IN THE PRIMACY
The perpetuity of successors in the
primacy explains that the primacy endures equally in all successors of Saint
Peter. It does not address the possibility of a long-term interregnum. Therefore,
it does not preclude the possibility of a prolonged vacancy.
'The principle of organic unity was the principality of St. Peter. The apostolic office was committed to him in all its fulness. It was committed to him, not as a mere individual, and for a time, but as the first of a line of successors in a permanent, perpetual, world-wide supremacy over the spiritual kingdom of Christ. He was as it were multiplied in his associate Apostles. After the death of St. Peter, his successors in the Apostolic See of Rome inherited his primacy, and the other bishops, who succeeded to the ordinary powers of the other Apostles after their death, became his assessors and colleagues in the government of the Church, subordinate princes under the one Sovereign Pontiff. Patriarchates and other minor provinces were not autonomous or voluntary confederations of suffragan bishops. They were parts and provinces of one kingdom. Metropolitans were superior to other bishops, not by any divine right, but as representatives of the Roman Pontiff, and by virtue of an appointment emanating from St. Peter and the other Apostles.' (The American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 21, 1896, p. 477)
Thesis.—St. Peter’s primacy of universal jurisdiction over the Church is perpetuated in his successors according to divine institution
This doctrine is a dogma of faith, defined by the Vatican Council in the following words:
If any one should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church... let him be anathema.
It is here maintained that the primacy of universal jurisdiction conferred upon St. Peter was not a personal privilege, such as the power of working miracles, or freedom from sin, but a permanent institution, necessary for the very existence of the Church. Therefore, the primacy with all its powers and privileges is transmitted to the successors of St. Peter, who form an unbroken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church in its continued existence as the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. (Berry, The Church of Christ, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1927, pp. 342-343)
IN SHORT:
Does it require a pope at all times? | Does it rule out a prolonged vacancy? | |
PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS |
YES |
YES |
PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS IN THE PRIMACY |
NO |
NO |
REFERENCES
The American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 21 (Philadelphia: Charles A. Hardy, 1896), p. 477.
Berry, E. Sylvester, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1927), pp. 342-343.
"The 'Perpetual Successors' Objection," Novus Ordo Watch, June 25, 2017, https://novusordowatch.org
✅HOW TO OBTAIN PERFECT CONTRITION?
✅ON APOSTASY FROM THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN OVERVIEW
✅''ALL RELIGIONS ARE A PATH TO REACH GOD''- A REVIEW OF 'POPE' FRANCIS' LATEST HERESIES
Support Our Work!
If you appreciate our efforts, consider supporting us via PayPal at usquequodomine1958@gmail.com or by purchasing our products.
Check out My Lenten Devotional—twenty-three selected meditations, including sermons by St Leo the Great, along with reflections on sin, salvation, and the Passion of Christ. Perfect for daily prayer and reflection.
.png)
This reply does not make any sense. I don't understand why you would think you have met the objection at all. Of course the perpetual successors of Peter are successors in his primacy. Do you think we are talking about successors in his fishing business? You yourself quote Berry saying the Vatican definition refers to "a perpetual line of successors," "an unbroken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church." Do you agree with Berry that Peter's successors in the primacy have succeeded one another, and necessarily succeed one another, in a perpetual and unbroken line?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, you allow that "that there will always be a reigning pope ... would necessarily rule out the possibility of a prolonged vacancy." The acts of the First Vatican Council make clear that the Council Fathers intended to define that there will indeed "always" be a pope, and regarded this as synonymous with "perpetual successors." In his relatio to the Fathers of 13 May 1870 on behalf of the Deputation on Faith, Cardinal Pie spoke of the first element of the canon as a definition that "the law of perpetual succession, by which it has been divinely established that Peter must always have successors, depends upon divine right, namely, on Christ's institution," and "that Peter's primacy is continued in some successor and heir." (Mansi 52:29ff.)
At least two Council Fathers published commentaries on the Council's documents. János Simor, Archbishop of Esztergom, explained, "To affirm the perpetuity of the primacy is exactly the same as to affirm perpetual successors of Peter in the same primacy. For Christ, by the very fact that he instituted the primacy as perpetual, also established the law of perpetual succession, which is to say, he willed that Peter should have successors in an uninterrupted line, who would propagate the primatial power and authority he received until the end of the world by a continuous inheritance." (Epistolae pastorales et instructiones selectae, Esztergom 1882, p. 150)
Paolo Ballerini, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, said the Council defined that Peter must have a successor forever, and went so far as to say that those who refuse communion with Leo XIII on the pretext that he and Pius IX have deviated from the ancient faith are anathema: "From the declaration of the doctrine, the Council goes on to the penal sanction, and declares to be separated from the Catholic Church, first, all those who deny that it is of divine institution through Christ's words to the Apostle Peter that he has and must have forever a successor in his primacy of honour and jurisdiction over the universal Church; in which error and consequent anathema are found wrapped up the schismatic Greeks, the Nestorians, the Monophysites or Jacobites, the Russian so-called Church, the Anglicans, all varieties of Protestants, and we should add also the Dutch Jansenists, i.e. the schismatic so-called Church of Utrecht; for even though these claim communion with the Holy See, by refusing due obedience they show themselves not to recognise this divine authority, by rebelling against which one ceases to participate in every benefit of the Catholic Church. Nor can one say otherwise of the new 'Old Catholics' of Germany and Switzerland, who by slandering the true Church as estranged from the ancient faith, deny at least implicitly the divine primacy of the successor of Peter, against which no-one can rebel without contravening the ordinances of God." (Il Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano, Milan 1880, pp. 648–9)
He leído unos cuantos de sus artículos, y admito estar sorprendido para bien, salvo que no combate en contra del padre del sedevacantismo anómico, que por comportamiento cismático/herético y su carácter senil y simoníaco, nos arruina la imagen a quienes no nos adherimos a tal anomía luciferina.
ReplyDeletePor último, leí de un autor católico respecto a la Primacía Perpetua moral, no material, en perfecta sintonía con la Pastor Æternus y el presente artículo. Puede encontrar dicho artículo en el blog: https://pioxiivacantisapostolicaesedis.blogspot.com/
ERGO, SU SANTIDAD PÍO XII ES EL ÚLTIMO PONTÍFICE DE LA HISTORIA