It seems like a schizophrenic position to hold. Maybe this is due to Father Chazal's association with Father Kramer who's a Bennyvacantist, but now that B16 is dead, aren't all Bennyvacantists considered sedevacantists?Perhaps, but I didn't think Fr Chazal was ever a Bennyvacantist.
It seems like a schizophrenic position to hold. Maybe this is due to Father Chazal's association with Father Kramer who's a Bennyvacantist, but now that B16 is dead, aren't all Bennyvacantists considered sedevacantists?
Are you stating that Fr. Paul Kramer's position is schizophrenic? If so, why?
The obvious course of action would be to request a clarification of Fr. Chazal.
His position is not necessarily schizophrenic, as he may be relying upon Billot (ie., He might believe the election of Francis was not canonical, but nevertheless, the universal public assent of the bishops “heals in the root all defects” in the election process), thereby rendering his pontificate legitimate, despite alleged uncanonical irregularities.
That argument would be coherent and consistent.
And we have a confirmation of point (i) in empirical fact since during the Great Western Schism 15 out of 15 cardinals followed an antipope.In addition,
[by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even 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 the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;[/list]
Please explain how cuм Ex Apostolatus didn't foresee and condemn all the various methods to conjure up a Pope from a heretic:You obviously aren't aware that cuм Ex (being hundreds of years old) has been partially abrograted and replaced.
But the most obvious "condition" that was "not observed" that is definitively "prescribed" by Universi Dominici Gregis was that the previous Pope must die, have a funeral mass celebrated and be buried BEFORE a new papal election can be held. The law and the facts in this situation are objectively verifiable.
3. I further establish that the College of Cardinals may make no dispositions whatsoever concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, much less allow any of these rights to lapse, either directly or indirectly, even though it be to resolve disputes or to prosecute actions perpetrated against these same rights after the death or valid resignation of the Pope. [12] All the Cardinals are obliged to defend these rights.
Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff….
Please explain how cuм Ex Apostolatus didn't foresee and condemn all the various methods to conjure up a Pope from a heretic:This is incorrect as None of the Popes from GWS are anti-popes....:sleep:
And we have a confirmation of point (i) in empirical fact since during the Great Western Schism 15 out of 15 cardinals followed an antipope.
Billot's position is destroyed by point (ii) and point (iii) excludes sedeprivationism.
This is incorrect as None of the Popes from GWS are anti-popes....:sleep:(https://i.imgur.com/NjQmtGu.png)
This is false. UDG did not abolish resignation, and in several places anticipates and foresees the possibility of future resignations:
“The current rules for electing the Roman Pontiff are those issued by Pope John Paul II in the docuмent Universi Dominici Gregis (http://tinyurl.com/papal-election) (UDG), modified by a Motu Proprio (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070611_de-electione_lt.html) docuмent of Pope Benedict XVI. The former docuмent, UDG, mentions resignation twice:
Footnote 12 in UDG cites Canon law:
And UDG mentions resignation a second time:
In other places, the docuмent speaks of the “vacancy” of the office, which includes either death or valid resignation.”
https://ronconte.com/2013/02/11/questions-on-the-resignation-of-the-pope/
This quote you provided from UDG further makes my case:So, are you saying that if a pope resigns, a new pope can't be elected until he dies?
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff….
It states that "dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election" (which includes death, funeral, and burial of the previous Pontiff) "must be observed in full." And these "dispositions" must be "observed in full" even if the "vacancy of the Apostolic See" occurs "as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff."
This means that the Supreme Pontiff can "resign" but a resignation does not abrogate the required "dispositions." Again, these "dispositions" include the funeral mass and burial of the previous Pope.
The case where the Pope has resigned but it not yet dead is dealt with in the first few sections of UDG:
---------------
1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction in matters which pertain to the Supreme Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office; such matters are to be reserved completely and exclusively to the future Pope. I therefore declare null and void any act of power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office which the College of Cardinals might see fit to exercise, beyond the limits expressly permitted in this Constitution.2. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the government of the Church is entrusted to the College of Cardinals solely for the dispatch of ordinary business and of matters which cannot be postponed (cf. No. 6), and for the preparation of everything necessary for the election of the new Pope. This task must be carried out in the ways and within the limits set down by this Constitution: consequently, those matters are to be absolutely excluded which, whether by law or by practice, come under the power of the Roman Pontiff alone or concern the norms for the election of the new Pope laid down in the present Constitution.3. I further establish that the College of Cardinals may make no dispositions whatsoever concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, much less allow any of these rights to lapse, either directly or indirectly, even though it be to resolve disputes or to prosecute actions perpetrated against these same rights after the death or valid resignation of the Pope.12 All the Cardinals are obliged to defend these rights.4. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription, by my supreme authority I declare it null and void.
-------------
Assuming that Benedict XVI validly resigned (which is doubtful), a vacancy of the Apostolic See does not, by itself, trigger a new papal election. The actual legal "conditions" or "dispositions" required for a new papal election are listed in UDG itself. And, as I have shown, the primary conditions for such election are the death, funeral, and burial of the previous Pope.
As Section 3 above states, in the situation where a Pope is not yet dead but has validly resigned, the "Cardinals are obliged to defend [the] rights" of "the Apostolic See." Those "rights of the Apostolic See" are spelled out in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus and in Canon Law.
But the main thing is that the College of Cardinals cannot call a conclave until the Pope is dead. If he is not dead, the functionaries of the Apostolic See (the Curia) continue to run the Church while the previous Pope is in retirement. But the Curia cannot change Church law during that period. Those officials can only carry out "ordinary business and of matters which cannot be postponed," as stated in UDG section 2, quoted above.
So, are you saying that if a pope resigns, a new pope can't be elected until he dies?
So, are you saying that if a pope resigns, a new pope can't be elected until he dies?.
So, are you saying that if a pope resigns, a new pope can't be elected until he dies?
Yes, that is what UDG says. A valid resignation of the Pontiff is not enough to trigger a new papal election. The Apostolic See is more than "the Pope.":facepalm::jester:
Yes, the Apostolic See is headed by the Roman Pontiff. But the other members of the Apostolic See are the curial officials, and those curial officials do not "cease from their office" except on the "the death of the Supreme Pontiff," not upon his resignation. See this from Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html#GENERAL NORMS):
Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
You can search Pastor Bonus for a reference to the "resignation" of the Pontiff. You will not find mention of it. That is because a papal "resignation" does not change anything regarding the curial offices of the Apostolic See. Only the "death of the Pope" changes who holds those offices.
So, Benedict XVI placed the Church in kind of suspended animation with his Declaratio. The curial officials have the power to pay the bills and keep the lights on. But they cannot change Church law. Everything that Bergoglio and is false regime has done is null and void.
If people will just read UDG and PB carefully, looking for the loopholes that I am pointing out, they will see that the loopholes do indeed exist and Benedict XVI cleverly exploited those loopholes. By doing so, he prevented Bergoglio and his henchmen from doing any damage to the legal/doctrinal aspects of the Church.
The obvious course of action would be to request a clarification of Fr. Chazal.
His position is not necessarily schizophrenic, as he may be relying upon Billot (ie., He might believe the election of Francis was not canonical, but nevertheless, the universal public assent of the bishops “heals in the root all defects” in the election process), thereby rendering his pontificate legitimate, despite alleged uncanonical irregularities.
That argument would be coherent and consistent.
Billot's argument would make him legitimate simpliciter. I don't agree with Billot's position, but that's a side point. So this "irregularity" would render Jorge ineligible to make St. Malachi's prophecy, but eligible to be the pope. Something seems off, especially given that St. Malachy included a number of Antipopes in his list.Lad, isn't Fr Chazal the priest you typically point to when you are explaining your own position?
You obviously aren't aware that cuм Ex (being hundreds of years old) has been partially abrograted and replaced.
A "canonical election" in March 2013 must have followed the law on papal elections found in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html), which states:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff….
It states that "dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election" (which includes death, funeral, and burial of the previous Pontiff) "must be observed in full." And these "dispositions" must be "observed in full" even if the "vacancy of the Apostolic See" occurs "as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff."
This means that the Supreme Pontiff can "resign" but a resignation does not abrogate the required "dispositions." Again, these "dispositions" include the funeral mass and burial of the previous Pope.
Yes, that is what UDG says. A valid resignation of the Pontiff is not enough to trigger a new papal election.
Yes and no. Even though it's disciplinary in one sense, there's a latent principle in the legislation...Exactly my point. It's complicated. I'm not a canon lawyer and Fr Cekada certainly wasn't either, so if he or anyone else appeals to cuм Ex, they'd better have some canon law background or else i'd consider their opinion as worthless.
Yes and no. Even though it's disciplinary in one sense, there's a latent principle in the legislation, one that invalidates "Universal Acceptance" theory. Pope Paul IV declared that a heretic Pope would be illegitimate even IF he were accepted "by all" and honored as pope, etc. That would be completely moot, since the alleged theological principle (rooted in Divine Law) would trump his legislation, since Universal Acceptance would kick in and invalidate it. At the very least, this indicates that Pope Paul IV did not believe that there was such a thing as Universal Acceptance that would legitimize and otherwise illegitimate pope.Don't the Popes have the power to bind and loose? Did Paul IV not use this power, and would this power not extend to what he said about the legitimacy of a heretic Pope?
Yes, that is what UDG says. A valid resignation of the Pontiff is not enough to trigger a new papal election. The Apostolic See is more than "the Pope."
Yes, the Apostolic See is headed by the Roman Pontiff. But the other members of the Apostolic See are the curial officials, and those curial officials do not "cease from their office" except on the "the death of the Supreme Pontiff," not upon his resignation. See this from Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html#GENERAL NORMS):
Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
You can search Pastor Bonus for a reference to the "resignation" of the Pontiff. You will not find mention of it. That is because a papal "resignation" does not change anything regarding the curial offices of the Apostolic See. Only the "death of the Pope" changes who holds those offices.
So, Benedict XVI placed the Church in kind of suspended animation with his Declaratio. The curial officials have the power to pay the bills and keep the lights on. But they cannot change Church law. Everything that Bergoglio and is false regime has done is null and void.
If people will just read UDG and PB carefully, looking for the loopholes that I am pointing out, they will see that the loopholes do indeed exist and Benedict XVI cleverly exploited those loopholes. By doing so, he prevented Bergoglio and his henchmen from doing any damage to the legal/doctrinal aspects of the Church.
Don't the Popes have the power to bind and loose? Did Paul IV not use this power, and would this power not extend to what he said about the legitimacy of a heretic Pope?
This too is problematic for Universal Acceptance. If one so elected were "Universally Accepted," it would render this statement completely moot..
.
I think a lot of people who dismiss the Universal Peaceful Acceptance idea don't grasp the problem it is intended to solve. The problem is, we must accept with certainty what the pope teaches to the whole Church. In the case of an extraordinary ex cathedra definition, we must accept such a definition with the certitude of faith.
But such a definition, and such teaching, can only come from a valid pope. An ex cathedra definition from someone who is not a valid pope is not part of faith, and might even be heretical. Catholics, therefore, need a way to know that any given papal claimant is a valid pope, and that he was validly elected.
No conclusion can be stronger than its premises. If we say that such and such a dogma is part of our faith because it is defined by a pope, while having doubt about whether that pope is a valid pope or not, results in our faith in that (supposedly) defined dogma being in doubt as well.
So what criterion will tell you that someone is a valid pope? The assertion of the college of cardinals? Maybe. But didn't they all assert that the first pope in the Great Western Schism was pope, and then the French cardinals "changed their minds" later on? So, if you use that criterion, then your acceptance of someone as pope would have to be contingent on waiting to see if any cardinals will change their minds at some point.
That's how Cardinal Billot argues that the universal, peaceful acceptance of the Church of someone as pope must be an infallible sign that the man is pope. This is a clear sign that everyone can see, and is pretty objective, so it meets what we are looking for as an objective, external proof that someone is pope. And it fits the principle that the entire Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith, and the pope is the rule of faith for the whole Church.
Cardinal Billot says that it's not just his opinion about Universal Peaceful Acceptance, but that of the moral unanimity of theologians, and he says it is certain.
People reject it because they misunderstand what is being said. Some people think this means the whole Church ratifies the election and makes it valid. This is false. The acceptance of a pope is a sign that his election was valid. It does not make it valid, nor does the whole Church elect the pope. Other people object that this idea is false because the whole Church could theoretically adhere to a false pope. But according to Billot this is false.
It can be explained by an analogy. If electricity is passing through a light bulb, the filament will emit light. The light is an infallible sign that electricity is passing through the bulb, since it is impossible for light to come from the filament without electricity. Are we saying the light coming from the bulb causes electricity to flow through the bulb? No. This is backwards. In the same way, if someone is validly elected (electricity passing through him, something we can't see), then the whole Church will adhere to him (something eminently visible, as the light from a bulb).
Now, this is not something that universally takes place. It has happened that a valid pope has been elected and not everyone has adhered to him. The situation with Antipope Anacletus II comes to mind, where the Church was split between the true pope and an antipope. That is possible, according to the UPA thesis. It's possible that not the entire Church will adhere to a true pope.
What is not possible, according to the Universal Peaceful Acceptance teaching, is that either:
1. The whole Church reject a valid pope, or that
2. The whole Church adhere to a false pope, believing him to be a true pope.
For people who disagree with this idea, I'm really curious what objective, publicly verifiable criterion they think proves whether someone is a valid pope or not?
"Possession is 9/10ths of the law:".
Therefore the preumption is that the pope is the pope, not that he isn't, and consequently the burden is upon you to demonstrate the man the entire Church and hierarchy acknowledges as pope is not truly so.
So the problem is the opposite as you frame it:
Its not that we need a way to know the claimant is truly pope (since he is already presumed by all to be such), but rather, we need a way to know that he is not (and that solution is provided by Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, and even St. Bellarmine, in the declaration they say is required):
None of them ever thought to plunge the Church into chaos, by implementing a standard of Protestant private/subjective interpretation against a universally acknowledged Pope (which would divide the Church to the last man).
At least we agree with your #2: It is not possible for the whole Church to adhere to a false pope (Billot). But that is precisely what sedevacantism alleges has happened.