If there is no Pope, then where is the Church?

[Quo Vadis]

The following error or errors occurred while posting this message: The message body was left empty.

[Hawaii Five-0]

I'd say that was a failure to launch! 

[tmw89]

If the Church disappears when She is without a pope, then the Church has disappeared about 260 or so times.

[Mithrandylan]

If the Church disappears when She is without a pope, then the Church has disappeared about 260 or so times.

I am satisfied with this response in establishing that a sede vacante is possible, but it doesn't answer the question in the OP.  INP had some very thorough arguments on this, hopefully he shows up.

[LouisIX]

If the Church disappears when She is without a pope, then the Church has disappeared about 260 or so times.

I am satisfied with this response in establishing that a sede vacante is possible, but it doesn't answer the question in the OP.  INP had some very thorough arguments on this, hopefully he shows up.

Yes, that argument only applies to the time between pontiffs.  I know that there was a time in history when we had 4 years between papal elections, but it can't be argued that this is similar to 50+ years of no papacy coupled with 5 (and counting) antipopes who are accepted by 99% of Catholics.


That scenario doesn't automatically disqualify sedevacantism in my mind, but any good argument for sedevacantism should address the absolute novelty of the current situation.

[CoolCat]

If the Church disappears when She is without a pope, then the Church has disappeared about 260 or so times.

I am satisfied with this response in establishing that a sede vacante is possible, but it doesn't answer the question in the OP.  INP had some very thorough arguments on this, hopefully he shows up.

Yes, that argument only applies to the time between pontiffs.  I know that there was a time in history when we had 4 years between papal elections, but it can't be argued that this is similar to 50+ years of no papacy coupled with 5 (and counting) antipopes who are accepted by 99% of Catholics.

That scenario doesn't automatically disqualify sedevacantism in my mind, but any good argument for sedevacantism should address the absolute novelty of the current situation.

Well said.

[INPEFESS]

If there is no Pope, then where is the Church?

Where ever the true Catholic faithful are.

Because we know that the Church endures even in the absence of a clearly visible head (during the Great Western Schism, an interregnum, etc.), it cannot be said that a clearly visible head is absolutely and always necessary for the Church. Though a clearly visible head is a normal state of affairs enjoyed by the Church, it has no always been so; thus, we should  not presume that it always will be so, especially since the end times will become very confusing, indeed--perhaps even more so than times passed.

Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, a noteworthy theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I, wrote that it would not contradict the teachings of the Church were God to leave the Church without a pope for (at least) 39 years--e.g., during the entire span of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417). Here is what he writes:

"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."

Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.

Though he says that it turned out there was, in fact, a valid pope, it wouldn't contradict the Church's teaching if there had been none during that entire time. The reason for this is that the underlying principle beneath both situations is the same: there is no clearly visible head. It doesn't matter whether that is the result of 100 claimants vying for the Chair at the same time (and then one happens to be true many years later) or because of the possibility that there isn't a true pope at all: both situations leave the faithful living at that time without a clear visible head. But the Church doesn't die even in the absence of a clearly visible head. In light of this, he goes on to point out that we shouldn't be too quick to pronounce on what God will or will not allow simply because such a permission would be greatly distressing.

"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises... We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

Fr. O'Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, p. 287.

Rather, according to the theologians, the true Church is that body of believers which never fails to publicly professes the true Faith (formal visibility) and is distinguished by its marks of unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity (material visibility). These marks exist even in the absence of a clearly visible earthly head. As St. Athanasius said, "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

[Quo Vadis]

Is it theologically possible that the Church could cease to abide in Rome, even permanently?

[LouisIX]

Is it theologically possible that the Church could cease to abide in Rome, even permanently?

That seems at least possible.

[INPEFESS]

Is it theologically possible that the Church could cease to abide in Rome, even permanently?

Hmm. I'm not sure.

I think that might depend on what you mean by "in Rome."

Do you mean "within the city limits" or "the diocese of Rome" itself? The former, most likely; the latter, probably not, since the Roman diocese is still considered the See of Rome even when it has historically been located elsewhere.

[Quo Vadis]

In an approved apparition, LaSallette I think, Mary said Rome would lose the faith in the 20th century.  In Quito, Ecuador, in the late 16th and early 17th century, she said Satan would work almost entirely through Freemasons, and that in the 20th century there would be a crisis in the Church and among the clergy, and in "customs", and that it would be hard to obtain the sacraments.  In Fatima, she said the errors of Russia would spread throughout the world, but that "in Portugal the dogma of the Faith would be preserved, etc...", but we have never been told by the Vatican what came after "etc..." (the missing third secret).  There are rumors about her dire prophecies in the withheld third secret, but I'll not talk about that, now.

These are considered public prophecy, rather than private revelation, especially since the Church has approved them.  Prophecy consists of warnings to mankind about what we are doing wrong and what we should do to save ourselves, as well as promises God makes.  Several elected Popes have acted publicly on her prophecy several times - though imperfectly - further showing that the apparitions constitute public prophecy.  St. Paul said "do not despise the prophecy".

Why do I say all this?  Because it is Mary that brought me to tradition.  I did not have a dog in this fight, and I am learning and wanting to figure out what fundamental questions I should ask.

As to my last question regarding Rome, I meant the geographical Vatican in Rome.

[Bonaventure]

I have not researched those apparitions in depth, but we do know that it is de fide that the Church of Rome will always have the Faith.

[Quo Vadis]

I heard it stated by more than one SSPX priest in sermons (on YouTube) that Mary prophesied the loss of the Faith in Rome.  However, I have not looked at her exact wording in the LaSalette apparition.  It may not be as climactic as I gathered from the sermons and the Fatima conferences.

Mary, please pray for your children to be guided out of this exile.

[INPEFESS]

I heard it stated by more than one SSPX priest in sermons (on YouTube) that Mary prophesied the loss of the Faith in Rome.  However, I have not looked at her exact wording in the LaSalette apparition.  It may not be as climactic as I gathered from the sermons and the Fatima conferences.

Mary, please pray for your children to be guided out of this exile.

I think that the later version of that apparition, which was condemned, includes the warning that Rome will lose the Faith; but the original version of that apparition, which was approved, does not specifically mention Rome losing the Faith, though it does seem to present a similar warning.

However, it should be remembered that the later version included many additions to the original version, so it is uncertain for which addition(s) specifically it was condemned, or whether it was simply the fact that the apparition had been embellished that the later version was condemned.

If this is incorrect, I would like to be corrected.