[Cantarella]

Quite frankly, this is what cuм Ex sounds like to me--a moral unanimity. I don't believe it means that every last person in the Church will be subject and obedient to a heretic.

I think so too. The constitution does mention textually "the unanimous assent of ALL the Cardinals":

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;

[Cantarella]

5) To better appreciate why Billot et al. are right, we need to consider the logic of why they say that universal acceptance is an infallible sign of the truth of a papal claim.  The pope is the fountain of infallibility for the Church, and all "other" infallibility springs forth from him.  If a man pretends to be pope (and isn't) and the Universal Church doesn't notice, then the universal Church, in principle, may learn false doctrine from him, and in principle, may defect.  Which is an impossibility per the Divine Law.  So it follows, given her indefectibility, that the universal Church will never accept a false pope.  And to this day, she hasn't.  And never will.

If Cardinal Billot is right; then a separatist R&R position falls like domino pieces, because if the elected Pope is indeed the fountain of infallibility for the Church, then there is an obligation for all the faithful to loyally adhere to his rule and teachings. Catholicism 101.

Cardinal Billot From "De Ecclesia Christi":

“At the minimum one should firmly hold as absolutely unshakable and beyond all doubt the opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always for her the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and hence the existence of all the conditions required for this legitimacy. And one does not have to search far and wide to find reasons for this. It derives directly from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The Gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and again, I shall be with you till the end of days. In point of fact, it would be one and the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope as it would be for her to follow a false rule of faith, because the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church is obliged to follow in believing, and certainly this is always the case, as will appear most clearly from what we say below. God can certainly permit that on occasion the vacancy of the Holy See should persist for a long time. He can also permit that a doubt could arise about the legitimacy of a given person who was elected. But He cannot allow that the entire Church would accept as a true Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such.”

But also consider this, from the beginning, a fringe of Traditional Catholics, this is, a part of the universal Church has not recognized the conciliar popes as true popes because they have not followed them in word or action (they have not adhered to them since they are not in formal communion and in fact, are instead in state of opposition towards them). According to Billot, this would be proof right there that the conciliar Popes are no true Popes, otherwise, everyone had recognized them as such; but not everyone did and has remained so, following Vatican II Council.  

On the other hand, if Cardinal Billot is wrong, then there is a possibility that even if in the first years after the Council the entire Church seemed to have recognized the legitimacy of these popes, the legitimacy was not real on account of formal heresy prior to the elections, following the dogmatic principles lined in cuм Ex Apostolatus. The fact that the entire Church (thousands of bishops) also accepted and went along with the Vatican II reforms also would mean little simply because of this gem:

All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible.

[Mithrandylan]

Why even try when someone fully admits that they don't waste their time with theologians?

It wouldn't be quite as bad if they'd just shut up.  But instead, those who have contempt for the theologians, seem to be those who are most eager to advance their own ideas about how everything works.  On account of their personal doctrinal purity, no doubt. 

[Mithrandylan]

If Cardinal Billot is right; then a separatist R&R position falls like domino pieces, because if the elected Pope is indeed the fountain of infallibility for the Church, then there is an obligation for all the faithful to loyally adhere to his rule and teachings. Catholicism 101.


But also consider this, from the beginning, a fringe of Traditional Catholics, this is, a part of the universal Church has not recognized the conciliar popes as true popes because they have not followed them in word or action (they have not adhered to them since they are not in formal communion and in fact, are instead in state of opposition towards them). According to Billot, this would be proof right there that the conciliar Popes are no true Popes, otherwise, everyone had recognized them as such; but not everyone did and has remained so, following Vatican II Council.  

On the other hand, if Cardinal Billot is wrong, then there is a possibility that even if in the first years after the Council the entire Church seemed to have recognized the legitimacy of these popes, the legitimacy was not real on account of formal heresy prior to the elections, following the dogmatic principles lined in cuм Ex Apostolatus. The fact that the entire Church (thousands of bishops) also accepted and went along with the Vatican II reforms also would mean little simply because of this gem:

All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible.

.
Did someone hijack your account?  I seem to recall your schtick being a very relentless, unlearned, rabid, and contemptuous anti-sedevacantism one.  But I'd more or less sign my name to this.  Can't object to any of it, all excellent points bearing saliently on the issue.  The only thing I'd say is that while universal acceptance is a proof of the legitimacy of a papal claim, the converse is not a proof of an anti-papacy (of itself). 

[Stubborn]

It's mere tautological idiocy to use VAC the way it's being used, entirely sidestepping all of the issues that matter.  Obviously the man elected pope becomes pope, and without any delay-- one doesn't even need the law to know that. It's completely question-begging when the question is whether or not he was elected.

Among faithful Catholics, the law is being used exactly as the last "true" pope intended it to be used - as the Church's official legislation regarding papal elections so the entire world knows with certainty and is not left searching, wondering, guessing, speculating or denying who the pope is.  It is through this law and those words in particular that faithful Catholics have infallible certainty who the pope is. The "true" pope laid down the law, faithful Catholics accept what is clearly stated and have no need of cardinals and theologians' speculations that a moral majority's peaceful acceptance is necessary in order to have infallible certainty. Who asked them anyway?

Our infallible certainty of the legitimacy of the pope is rooted upon the law that clearly states: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope", these words ARE our infallible certainty. The Catholic Church has never been a democracy, the conciliar church, yes, the Catholic Church, no. The Catholic Church adheres to the laws made by "true" popes - period.

The last "true" pope knew that to ignore this law and those words in particular, would result in people doing exactly what the sedes are doing - wondering, guessing, speculating and denying who the pope is, that is what happens when this law is ignored or rejected as "question-begging" and we can be absolutely certain that the last "true" pope certainly understood this, which is why he left us with this law - not without purpose.

[MyrnaM]

Among faithful Catholics, the law is being used exactly as the last "true" pope intended it to be used - as the Church's official legislation regarding papal elections so the entire world knows with certainty and is not left searching, wondering, guessing, speculating or denying who the pope is.  It is through this law and those words in particular that faithful Catholics have infallible certainty who the pope is. The "true" pope laid down the law, faithful Catholics accept what is clearly stated and have no need of cardinals and theologians' speculations that a moral majority's peaceful acceptance is necessary in order to have infallible certainty. Who asked them anyway?

Our infallible certainty of the legitimacy of the pope is rooted upon the law that clearly states: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope", these words ARE our infallible certainty. The Catholic Church has never been a democracy, the conciliar church, yes, the Catholic Church, no. The Catholic Church adheres to the laws made by "true" popes - period.

The last "true" pope knew that to ignore this law and those words in particular, would result in people doing exactly what the sedes are doing - wondering, guessing, speculating and denying who the pope is, that is what happens when this law is ignored or rejected as "question-begging" and we can be absolutely certain that the last "true" pope certainly understood this, which is why he left us with this law - not without purpose.

Stubborn get off your rant about the sede not believing what the true popes have said
and look into your own eyes, you don't even believe in the Baltimore Catechism unless you changed your mind.  
It seems the people posting change their tone about as much as the theologians, I'll continue to hear the voice of God when He said, "you will know them by their fruits."

[Meg]

Yes, exactly Meg - only worse because the sede's are as positive that pope st. Pius X was a true pope as they are that the conciliar popes have not been true popes. It's worse in their case because it demonstrates that they will not submit to any pope - true or not -  if submitting means they must sacrifice their own ideas, opinions or conclusions.

And yes, meanwhile they tell us we are heretics, liars and hypocrites for not submitting to "false" popes' sinful directives as they make excuses, reject or entirely ignore clear teachings from "true" popes. They do not see what is right in front of them.  

Agreed. They don't want to submit to any pope. That makes sense. Like Fr. Walthen said, sedevacantism is basically anarchy, since anarchists don't want any authority over them....not even that of saintly popes. They will accept from Pope Pius X that which they agree with, and not accept what they don't agree with. They pick and choose. Like how Protestants do with Scripture. 

[JohnAnthonyMarie]

Pope Pius X instituted the law that the man elected is instantly the true pope

May I inquire a reference to this?

[Stubborn]

May I inquire a reference to this?

From this post:

Here is a link that will open a PDF file. Note that the source for this and the comments in it are from the land of extreme dogmatic sedeism so ignore the comments.

I used to have a PDF of Pope St. Pius X's but lost it some months back when my computer died. It was essentially the same as Pope Pius XII's in the link above. I looked but could not find it online anymore so I don't know if it was removed or renamed or what.

[Ladislaus]

It's mere tautological idiocy to use VAC the way it's being used, entirely sidestepping all of the issues that matter.  Obviously the man elected pope becomes pope, and without any delay-- one doesn't even need the law to know that.  It's completely question-begging when the question is whether or not he was elected.  In part, this question touches on capacity.  There are certain invalid matter for election-- women, for instance, or the dead, and yes, also non-Catholics.  The law does not treat of these things because it presupposes them.  On Stubborn's reading it isn't even necessary that the person be living.  He refused to answer that question the last time we discussed this.

THIS ^^^

[Ladislaus]

Agreed. They don't want to submit to any pope. That makes sense. Like Fr. Walthen said, sedevacantism is basically anarchy, since anarchists don't want any authority over them....not even that of saintly popes. They will accept from Pope Pius X that which they agree with, and not accept what they don't agree with. They pick and choose. Like how Protestants do with Scripture.

I can't believe you had the nerve to write this; it's the height of hypocrisy.  EVERY Traditional Catholic has had to do some "picking and choosing" at some point.  You sift out what you don't like in the V2 papal claimants.

[Stubborn]

Stubborn get off your rant about the sede not believing what the true popes have said
and look into your own eyes, you don't even believe in the Baltimore Catechism unless you changed your mind.  
It seems the people posting change their tone about as much as the theologians, I'll continue to hear the voice of God when He said, "you will know them by their fruits."

If the sedes have faith in the last "true" pope, then they would accept his laws, all of them, each and every one of them - particularly the law stating the man elected is the true pope.

If sede's have any faith at all in the last "true" pope, then they should in fact be very grateful to him - especially in this crisis where there is much confusion, that the last "true" pope did his duty and did not leave us wondering who the heck the true pope really is in these confusing times.

The Baltimore catechism though very good, is in need of having a few lessons corrected. It is a text book, not the Bible.

[Stubborn]

I can't believe you had the nerve to write this; it's the height of hypocrisy.  EVERY Traditional Catholic has had to do some "picking and choosing" at some point.  You sift out what you don't like in the V2 papal claimants.

Let it rest, like the sedes, you have no case Lad. The only case you have is the case you feel needs to be invented for no reason whatsoever. 

[Meg]

I can't believe you had the nerve to write this; it's the height of hypocrisy.  EVERY Traditional Catholic has had to do some "picking and choosing" at some point.  You sift out what you don't like in the V2 papal claimants.

I sift out what isn't Traditionally Catholic. There's a difference. Sedes don't do this. They sift out what doesn't fit their sede thesis. 

AND....some sedes say that we have to accept EVERYTHING that Francis teaches, and that we aren't allowed to sift. Do you agree with this?

[JohnAnthonyMarie]

Here is a link that will open a PDF file.

Very interesting.  Thank you for the reference.