CathInfo.com

So, a few words on Universal Peaceful Acceptance.

1) Pope Paul IV implicitly rejects the notion.  While cuм ex Apostolatus isn't directly doctrinal, when he states that a heretic who's elected would not be the pope even if he were "accepted by all", Universal Acceptance would render this statement moot and even nonsensical, since acceptance by all would make him the pope.

2) Historical precedents that falsify Universal Acceptance, in addition to the one cited by +Vigano --
  -- St. Silverius was kidnapped and exiled by the wicked Byzantine Empress for rejecting various heretics she had nominated to be bishops, and the people and clergy of Rome elected Pope Vigilius, who was "universally accepted", despite the fact that the previous pope was still alive
  -- St. Martin I, identically scenario, exiled by the Byzantine Emperor by refusing to accept his attempts to promote the monothelitist heresy.  Eugene I was elected and "universally accepted" before St. Martin died in exile.
  -- Benedict IX was elected (through corruption and bribery) but was "universally accepted".  But the clergy and people of Rome deposed him and elected and "universally accepted" another.

... Since Popes cannot be deposed, the subsequent "universal acceptance" of their replacements were not legitimate.

3) Even Cardinal Billot states, when articulating his position, that his principle of "Universal Acceptance" derives from the principle that the Ecclesia Credens cannot adhere to a false rule of faith.  From almost the very beginning, Traditional Catholics (those who still kept the faith) certainly rejected the V2 papal claimants as a "rule of faith", despite the disputes about whether they technically remained popes.

4) Apart from God's Providence preventing such a scenario, would "universal acceptance" prove and even "sanate" the election of some transgender female?  In this day and age, with chemical/hormonal and surgical interventions, such a one might sneak in as "pope".

If we believe that "universal acceptance" can sanate an illegitimate election, we'd be saying that the Church deposed a couple of the above-mentioned popes, St. Silverius and St. Martin I, as well as Benedict IX.

And I hold that the election of Cardinal Siri is in the same category.  He was elected, accepted, and then was forced to resign under grave threats, rendering is resignation invalid, and that this is that to which the prophecy of St. Francis refers, the "uncanonically elected pope" who would be a destroyer.

One thing still bothers me about Vigano’s refutation of the UPA argument of Billot:

Billot himself was writing well after the historical example of Pope Urban, yet it appears not to have dissuaded his theory.

Why not?  

Does Billot address the matter somewhere in untranslated writing, or am I expected to believe that such a momentous historical example simply skipped his mind (and/or that Vigano is the better historian and theologian)?

Possibly, but that’s saying a lot.