Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Milesian
Sedevacantism rests on the premise that a bad Pope can't be a real Pope. On the contrary, the Church itself acknowledges (and always has done) that there have been bad Popes but nowhere did it ever claim that mean they weren't real Popes. The only Anti-Popes have historically been those who were not validly elected, not anything relient on their personal character.
[...]
The problem with Sedevacantism is that it relies on the fallible laeity judging the Pope and deposing him as we see fit. To start with, the Church does not recognise the laeity to possess anything like that kind of authority.
Thus, we are led into the doctine of Private Interpretation - a heresy based on rejecting the Church's authority and which was seen as one of the prime heresies driving the Reformation (in fact, it was an old heresy revived by Luther out of necessity due to the logical outcome of his rejecting Church authority and tradition). Sedevacantism walks a very dangerous line.
|
Very insightful. For if such were not the case, then why draw the line with the modern period? Certainly, a case (however speculative) can be made for immorality against the Borgias and diabolism against Honorius III - yet valid Popes they remain.
Papal history is genuinely fascinating stuff. Even more so is the theology behind the papacy, some of which you stated here. The claim to absolute moral authority while at the same time in effect exempting the beneficiaries of that claim to the very morality they are supposed to embody has always struck me as one of the most interesting wrinkles.