Contrary to the claims of a few modern sedevacantists, the commemoration of the Supreme Pontiff during the canon of the Mass is the very definitive and telling sign of "a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity".

it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition).

This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

As seen above, this is not to argue anti-una-cuм but for it. This external and ready profession of union, communion with and submission to the Roman Pontiff is not therefore optional. It is necessary for all the faithful to recognize the man universally recognized as Pope in this way, by the bishops throughout the world.

Fr. Sylvester Hunter says, "it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined."

Nishant,

I'm not sure precisely what your point is, but obviously commemorating the pope in the mass pre-supposes there is a pope to commemorate.  So its begging the question if you're trying to argue against sedevacantism, since the very point of contention is that these men aren't popes, ergo they shouldn't be commemorated.

But at the same time, one is not bound to acknowledge a doubtful superior (see Wernz & Vidal*)

It is agreed that if the bishops of the world recognize a man as pope that this is an infallible sign that the man recognized is indeed the pope, but to properly understand this an emphasis should be placed on "bishop" and "recognize."  Those who manifestly do not hold the Catholic faith (which would include many and perhaps most N.O. bishops) cannot be counted among lawful successors to the apostles, having forfeited their office by Canon 188/4 (but also according to the Divine Law, due to the radical incompatibility of a non-Catholic holding office within the Church, of which he is not even a member).  Furthermore, of those that are/were (in the case of past conciliar pontiffs) lawful successors, it cannot be said that there is universal recognition as to recognize the pontiff is to obey his laws and abide by his teaching, and traditional Catholics have never done this with the post-conciliar popes; in fact, this same would apply to the Novus Ordo and recognizing when you consider that ~80% of self-identified Catholics don't submit to the laws of the Novus Ordo Church on birth control, with a similarly high number not believing in the Real Presence, high percentages believing in divorce and re-marriage and a whole host of things which the N.O. Church still "officially" teaches against, although plenty of their bishops dissent from these teachings as well.

In summary, non-Catholics are not a measure of this doctrine of universal acceptance/recognition, and even beside that, those very same men and faithful do not really recognize or accept (peacefully) these pontificates in the first place.




*

…jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently in such a person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal jurisdiction.

Again, one must make necessary distinctions.  Presumably St. Vincent Ferrer during the Great Schism inserted the name of the wrong guy in the canon.  But I suspect that this did not render him out of communion with the Church, nor did his Masses displease God in any way as a result.

St. Vincent Ferrer was in MATERIAL error regarding the identity of the true pope, but formally intended to be in communion with whoever happened to be the true pope.

This actually causes more problems for R&R because you profess, essentially with the certainty of faith, that these men are popes but then are not subject to them in any real, meaningful way.  Putting up a picture of the current claimant in the vestibule and inserting his name in the Canon DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR SUBSTITUTE FOR ACTUAL REAL SUBMISSION to these men.

Thanks, Sean. I've seen it before, but just recently I went through an article written by Bp. Sanborn that cited Ex Quo. He was mainly arguing against other sedevacantists, who attend Mass una cuм, though he mentioned the Society in passing.

Mith,

It is agreed that if the bishops of the world recognize a man as pope that this is an infallible sign that the man recognized is indeed the pope

Great, so you agree with Fr. Hunter's principle, then. I agree with most of the rest of your post.

 As for what recognition means, would you agree with Pope Benedict XIV that una cuм is a definitive act that "recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter." This commemoration, says the Pope, "is the chief and most glorious form of communion".

If even a moral unanimity of the world's bishops do this (I think an absolute unanimity exists currently), it is, as you say "an infallible sign that the man recognized is indeed the pope"

Are you aware of any bishops who do not do this? We're not talking about bishops without jurisdiction here, but the world's ordinaries. As far as I'm aware, every single one of them professes communion with the Pope, and prays for him as Pope. So does the Society of course, but that is another matter.

Ladislaus, the same consideration answers the GWS question. This would apply only where the world's bishops, with at least moral unanimity, recognize a single contestant as Pope, and in this manner profess communion with him.

If the Vatican was not Masonic, and were true Catholics, I would agree with you.  As long as they are Masonic's they will vote Masonic, not Catholic.  The Pope by definition of Jesus' Church found, must be Catholic. and nomination must be such as well.

Yes, a 55-year interregnum poses problems for the Church's indefectibility; it's beginning to stretch the limits of credibility. . .

What is time--5 minutes, 5 years, 55 years, 5000 years--to God?

No, we can't blow off the lengthy interregnum as a non-issue; it's a valid consideration.  It's not about the power of God or anything so simplistic.  It has to do with the indefectibility of the Church and Our Lord's promises regarding the Church.  Clearly a 500-year interregnum would violate the indefectibility of the Church.  So would a 100-year interregnum.  10 years?  Not so much.  I don't know that there's an exact number that can be assigned, but we can't just blow this problem off because God is all-powerful.

5,000 years, really?

In my opinion, however, we've only had an interregnum since the death of Giuseppe Siri in 1989.  So it's only been about 25 years.

The infallible declarations of Vatican 1 guarantee the validity of the Post V2 popes:


http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm#SESSION%204%20:%2018%20July%201870

On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

    That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time .

    For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood .

    Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received  .

    For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body .

    Therefore,
        if anyone says that
            it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
            the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
        let him be anathema.

In order, then, that

    the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
    by the union of the clergy,
    the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
        faith and
        communion,
    he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
    instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
    their visible foundation.


 Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation .
And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,

    we judge it necessary,
        with the approbation of the sacred council, and
        for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
    to propound the doctrine concerning the
        institution,
        permanence and
        nature
    of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
    upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.

This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.


Thus, all who hold the contrary erroneous position are bound under pain of grievous mortal sin to renounce their error.