CathInfo.com

Lad, as the forum member who started this topic, I appeal to you to end this debate.  It is going on 3800 views and I've forgotten how many pages.

Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.

Alright, hollingsworth, I'll back off.  This is an issue I'm keenly interested in, because it's crucial to forming our consciences.  And I've enjoyed bouncing thoughts off ByzCat and Pax, who both appear to be inquiring sincerely into the truth of the matter ... even though neither are sedevacantists.  Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.

Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion.  Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church.  Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants.  Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass.  Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)?  That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void.  We just don't know.

With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succuмbed to the same errors as the papal claimant?  When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?