Author Topic: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable (Read 30527 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #95 on:** September 01, 2022, 09:24:04 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus 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.

As Fr. Hesse said, the popes themselves, including the conciliar popes, have abrogated and replaced all the previous popes' constitutions, not only Pope Paul IV's constitution.

Vacante Sede Apostolica (Pope St. Pius X 1904)

Quote

Therefore, having considered the matter early and carefully, with certain knowledge and by our own motion,
from the fullness of Our Apostolic power, we have decided to issue this Constitution, which will be in force
forever in the future, which the Sacred College of Cardinals, vacating the Roman See of Peter, and using in
unity in electing the Roman Pontiff, and we decree that it shall have the sole force of law, having abrogated all and every Constitutions and Decrees issued by the Roman Pontiffs on this subject, also promulgated in general councils and concluded in the body of law....

Vacantis Apostolica Sedis (Pope Pius XII 1945)

Quote

To be sure, in the meantime, Pius XI, of recent memory, judged that some chapters of a
Constitution of this kind should now be changed just as the pattern of events and the times
seemed to demand; likewise, We Ourselves mindfully took into consideration that other things
also had to be reformed for the same reason.

Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure the knowledge and the plenitude
of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which
is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout, “which,” to use
the words of the same Predecessor of Ours, “the Sacred College of Cardinals shall solely use
during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and in electing the Roman Pontiff,” the Constitution
Vacante Sede Apostolica , having therefore been abrogated, according as it had been brought
forth by Our Predecessor.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #96 on:** September 01, 2022, 07:17:06 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 01, 2022, 07:37:42 AM

See my previous post. UA seems to be tossed out there all the time as if it were some given, dogmatically established. I disagree. It's a theological speculation that's fraught with difficulties, contradicted by the cuм ex, undermined by some historical precedents, etc.

And another aspect is ... universal by WHOM? 90%+ of Novus Ordites, by their own polls, have lost the faith, denying one dogma or another. So, if the Arians, which some have suggested took about 90% of the Catholic Church down in its day, had managed to elect an Arian as pope, would that 90% acceptance count for anything?

So of those Catholics who have still the faith, a very significant percentage, even if they aren't SVs, entertain serious positive doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants. It is not necessary to be certain that they're illegitimate. Rather, if you're NOT certain, with the certainty of faith, that they're legitimate, if you can't basically say that you're as sure that Bergoglio is pope as that there are Three Persons in One God, then you don't have the requisite certainty of faith to make their legitimacy dogmatic fact, which is what it must be for any dogmas these popes were to define to be certain with the certainty of faith ... and that's where this principle of Papa Dubius Papa Nullus ("a doubtful pope is no pope") come into play.

I’m not saying I’m as certain of the post Vatican II Popes as I am of the Trinity. I’m just trying to understand the logic by which we are permitted to doubt them, not saying that it’s not permitted to doubt them.
I guess my issue here is even given your premises, that 90% or so of Catholics don’t count due To rejection of some dogma or another, 10 percent of the NO is STILL the majority of Catholics. Even if somehow we say SSPX, etc doubts them, it still seems like the majority of Catholics, including every Catholic cardinal (even if that’s not most conciliar cardinals) And every bishop with ordinary jurisdiction thinks they are popes. I guess the only thing you could say hair is that universal acceptance Doesn’t suffice as a justification, but even then that raises a question for me. Even given your premises hasnt God allowed the vast majority of the church to err both on the identity of the pope and the rule of faith?

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #97 on:** September 01, 2022, 07:18:23 PM »

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

Arguably, most of the Catholics left are Sedes and R&R.
Therefore, the identity of the Pope is very contentious.

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.

Previous comment was me, I forgot this was in the anonymous forum for some reason

but also, is it though? Again, even if only 5 to 10% of the so-called conciliar church are really Catholic, that’s still by far the majority of Catholics

Ladislaus · « **Reply #98 on:** September 01, 2022, 08:26:15 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on September 01, 2022, 07:17:06 PM

I’m not saying I’m as certain of the post Vatican II Popes as I am of the Trinity. I’m just trying to understand the logic by which we are permitted to doubt them, not saying that it’s not permitted to doubt them.
I guess my issue here is even given your premises, that 90% or so of Catholics don’t count due To rejection of some dogma or another, 10 percent of the NO is STILL the majority of Catholics. Even if somehow we say SSPX, etc doubts them, it still seems like the majority of Catholics, including every Catholic cardinal (even if that’s not most conciliar cardinals) And every bishop with ordinary jurisdiction thinks they are popes. I guess the only thing you could say hair is that universal acceptance Doesn’t suffice as a justification, but even then that raises a question for me. Even given your premises hasnt God allowed the vast majority of the church to err both on the identity of the pope and the rule of faith?

Well, this isn't a democratic consideration. It's not necessary for a MAJORITY of Catholics to doubt the popes. If there are a substantial number out there with well-founded doubts, that's enough doubt to cause a problem. There are enough Catholics out there who doubt the popes to undercut Universal Peaceful Acceptance. Contrast that with, say, Pius XII. NOBODY questioned his legitimacy ... well, there was probably some crackpot out there, there always is. But that is what Universal Peaceful Acceptance looks like ... not what we're seeing with Bergoglio, where one Catholic after another is coming out and publicly questioning whether he's a heretic and a legitimate pope ... and for GOOD reason. I submit that Bergoglio obviously lacks Universal Peaceful Acceptance.

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #99 on:** September 02, 2022, 09:27:45 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 01, 2022, 07:18:23 PM

Previous comment was me, I forgot this was in the anonymous forum for some reason

but also, is it though? Again, even if only 5 to 10% of the so-called conciliar church are really Catholic, that’s still by far the majority of Catholics

Even if the share of R&Rs and Sedes was 1% of Catholics I venture that's significant.

However, they are at least 10% I'd say.

I'm trying to think how many Novus Ordites could exist that reject the heresies they've been taught but don't draw any conclusions from it. Probably some grandmas.

IDK, it is quite possible even 90% of Catholics are Traditionalists.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable (Read 30527 times)

Stubborn

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

Änσnymσus

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

ByzCat3000

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

Ladislaus

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

ServusInutilisDomini

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