Author Topic: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable (Read 30547 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #85 on:** September 01, 2022, 07:53:59 AM »

Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on September 01, 2022, 05:20:35 AM

I couldn't find the quote now but some theologian said that even if there was no Pope during the Western schism that would be no problem.

I believe it was Father Edmund O'Reilly, SJ. I think that the matter hasn't really been 100% settled, as some do apply the principle of Papa Dubius Papa Nullus to that situation (and understandably so).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** September 01, 2022, 07:58:52 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on September 01, 2022, 07:44:10 AM

I repeat what I said about DL's objection: you're rejecting the theory, fine. But you are not falsifying the theory on its own terms, which would be checkmate. This is merely a rejection of the theory for reasons extraneous to the reasons it's based on: the election by the cardinals and universal acceptance by the ordinaries.

How does cuм ex not implicitly falsify it, with the statement that if the Roman Pontiff were accepted and given obedience by ALL (including the Cardinals, explicitly called out), he would still not be endowed with papal authority? That includes the "Cardinals and Ordinaries".

It's also falsified by historical situations that I mentioned (I think one of them was a Pope Martin and another a Pope Stephen).

Given that it's a speculative theological conclusion, that's precisely the weight that it has.

On the other hand, the fact that the Magisterium cannot be stained in any way with error has been taught repeatedly by the Papal Magisterium. So there is that, which somehow R&R simply ignore ... because it doesn't really square with the narrative.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #87 on:** September 01, 2022, 08:09:04 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 01, 2022, 07:58:52 AM

How does cuм ex not implicitly falsify it, with the statement that if the Roman Pontiff were accepted and given obedience by ALL (including the Cardinals, explicitly called out), he would still not be endowed with papal authority? That includes the "Cardinals and Ordinaries".

It's also falsified by historical situations that I mentioned (I think one of them was a Pope Martin and another a Pope Stephen).

Given that it's a speculative theological conclusion, that's precisely the weight that it has.

On the other hand, the fact that the Magisterium cannot be stained in any way with error has been taught repeatedly by the Papal Magisterium. So there is that, which somehow R&R simply ignore ... because it doesn't really square with the narrative.

Lad,

I'll try this somewhat differently. I'm not arguing against your rejection of the UA theory. Your argument would be a knockout if you showed the theory to be false on its own terms, or in application to the facts. For example, you'd show the theory false in application to a Conciliar pope if we had a sufficient number of ordinaries (can you think of even one, though?) who rejected a Conciliar pope: you'd have shown there to be no acceptance of the pope on UA's own terms. Checkmate. You haven't done that, that's all. So the UA enthusiasts would reject your view and it'd be a standoff.

Btw, I think your argument from cuм Ex is strong. I'd go with Paul IV over all those theologians any day.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #88 on:** September 01, 2022, 08:13:38 AM »

cuм ex Apostolatus (Pope Paul IV, 1559):

Quote

[We enact, determine, decree and define:]
...
that if ever at any time it shall appear that ... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through ... obedience accorded to such by all ...

(ii) explicitly rejects this speculative principle of "convalidation"

Both (i) and (ii) rejects Universal Acceptance, indicating that unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, and obedience accorded by all cannot legitimize the election of a heretic to the papacy.

As I said, people argue that this is disciplinary, but there's an implied principle. If UA and convalidation "were a thing", then this Bull / Apostolic Constitution is meaningless, as UA and convalidation would trump this disciplinary measure.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** September 01, 2022, 08:20:33 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on September 01, 2022, 08:09:04 AM

Lad,

I'll try this somewhat differently. I'm not arguing against your rejection of the UA theory. Your argument would be a knockout if you showed the theory to be false on its own terms, or in application to the facts. For example, you'd show the theory false in application to a Conciliar pope if we had a sufficient number of ordinaries (can you think of even one, though?) who rejected a Conciliar pope: you'd have shown there to be no acceptance of the pope on UA's own terms. Checkmate. You haven't done that, that's all. So the UA enthusiasts would reject your view and it'd be a standoff.

Btw, I think your argument from cuм Ex is strong. I'd go with Paul IV over all those theologians any day.

OK, so you're speaking about the fact that the vast majority of laity have deviated from the faith vs. the fact that a near-universality of the Cardinals and bishops accepted him. But that too is a speculative part of the speculative theory. I'm not sure I buy that. Faithful are also part of the Ecclesia Credens. That would be your argument that UA (if it existed) would apply in the V2 scenario. I think that's more about the question of whether it applies to this crisis rather than whether it's valid per se. There are, however, historical circuмstances also, the one that I mentioned, which seem to undermine UA, where in point of fact all the Cardinals and bishops accepted a pope ... and yet the legitimate pope was still alive and had not resigned. I'll have to dig up some information about those cases.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable (Read 30547 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable

Ladislaus

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable

Änσnymσus

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable

Ladislaus

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable

Ladislaus

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable