Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 71

Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism  (Read 37136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #175 on: October 09, 2019, 04:34:30 PM »
From the American Ecclesiastical Review, in 1965, Rev. Father Joseph Connell, the editor of the AER after Monsignor Fenton, tells us,

Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ...  The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #176 on: October 09, 2019, 04:35:32 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 09, 2019, 04:24:28 PM
Sorry, but I’m not letting you walk away from the matter of peaceful universal acceptance making these papacies dogmatic facts.
By saying Lefebvre/Williamson question tge conciliar papacies, you are calling them heretics by making them to reject dogmatic facts.

This is unbelievable.  It is the exact opposite, and you are completely deranged, Johnson.  Seek mental help.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #177 on: October 09, 2019, 04:36:17 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 09, 2019, 04:35:32 PM
This is unbelievable.  It is the exact opposite, and you are completely deranged, Johnson.  Seek mental help.
I accept your concession of defeat if you can’t mount an argument 
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #178 on: October 09, 2019, 04:40:27 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 09, 2019, 04:29:50 PM
Wrong:  see previous quote
Who needs to look it up? Pope Pius X and XII said that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", I will take their word for it.

I never saw that quote before, but universal acceptance means that the only ones who must be unanimous in accepting the elected pope as pope, are all of the cardinals.

Whenever the Church refers to "Universal anything", it always includes the attribute of time - as in since the time of the Apostles, since the promulgation of the Gospel, as in always and everywhere, or always and by all the faithful. So whoever thinks it is an infallible sign of validity that the pope enjoys universal acceptance by the whole Church, they don't know what the H they're saying.     

Have a pleasant evening.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #179 on: October 09, 2019, 04:42:47 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 09, 2019, 04:28:34 PM
Wrong.
Here is Hunter:
if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... 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. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1, ref2,
 
Right, Hunter - I had that one in mind. He says the bishops’ recognition, but its a similar point - the connection of the acceptance by the hierarchy (including bishops and not just cardinals) of the election and papacy. 

I don’t believe we have a single cardinal elector doubting the papacy of a V2 pope. What about bishops who were (are) ordinaries? I don’t believe you can name any of them who doubted a V2 pope’s papacy either. Thuc maybe? 

And if it’s only one or two, what then?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 71
« previous next »