There are a number of problems with your idea, here is only one: Let's pretend for a moment that the next pope is an even more stringent and orthodox pope then say, Pope Pius X, and he plans to wholly restore the Church. There is no way that this pope would enjoy a "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church." No way.

Right, I understand.  But I think that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.  Those types who would reject this new orthodox Pope, are they really Catholics and part of the Church?  Also, not liking him is not the same thing as not accepting him as a rule of faith.  And I think that it's what we have to understand universal acceptance as.  I mean, hey, I don't particularly "like" Pius XII.  But I still recognize him as a Catholic, as the Pope, as having authority over the Church.  So even if these types that you describe were up in arms with dislike, if they on that account did not accept him as a true Pope with authority over them, then, I have news for them, their opinion doesn't count for squat ... since they are not part of the Church.

With Bergoglio, it's not just that we don't like the guy.  We don't really recognize him as having the same faith we do.  Why else have we split off from him like that?  Traditional Catholics do NOT accept Bergoglio, not REALLY ... even if they pay some lip service to him because they feel scrupulous about having to since he's walking around wearing white.  But, according to some, it's crucial that 99.9% of the Novus Ordo establishment accept him.  What does that even mean when by their own polls 95% of them are heretics and have become such subjectivists that they feel they can believe what they want to ... in other words, they don't even believe that the Pope of even the Catholic Church in general is a rule of faith, so how can they accept him as such?  For these, the Catholic Church is just one of many paths that lead to the same God, and it just so happens to be their preference at this time.

There are a number of problems with your idea, here is only one: Let's pretend for a moment that the next pope is an even more stringent and orthodox pope then say, Pope Pius X, and he plans to wholly restore the Church. There is no way that this pope would enjoy a "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church." No way.

Throughout this conciliar revolution, from it's beginning until now, not so much as one drop of blood has been shed because the pope, hierarchy, priests, nuns and people all abandoned their faith *willingly*, some even eagerly, they do not want anything to do with anything other then what they have - what they really want is what they’ve got, that’s why they have it, that’s why they’ve chosen it, that’s why they fight for it, and its why they continue to absorb it, they cling to it and they love it. You're living in a dream world if you have any notion that a holy pope will be universally peacefully accepted by the whole Church - if anything, he'll be universally violently rejected.  Much blood will be shed, be certain of this.

Right now, no pope is going to receive "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church" (whatever that means to you) unless he's a Modernist Liberal who is hell bent on destroying the Church.

So that's the problem with the opinion of "all theologians" (of the last 100 years or so who hold this opinion) who make the universal peaceful acceptance the criterion for papal validity.

Now THAT was an interesting insight!

Ultimately, you are raising the question:

“What about a claimant who’s papacy should be a dogmatic fact, but isn’t?”

That scenario never occurred to me before.

And I completely agree with your suggestion that a truly orthodox pope would never has his pontificate ratified by the universal moral unanimity of the bishops.

But does that necessarily mean that the unanimous opinion of theologians are wrong that said universal acceptance makes such a papacy a dogmatic fact (and therefore as binding as it is certain)?

Still thinking it through, but I don’t think so:

It seems to indispensable to the hierarchical constitution of the Church that there could be a true pope rejected by a sizable number of bishops (for any reason), or conversely, that all the bishops could be deceived into recognizing a false pope.

But the example of a good pope-elect who refuses to gain universal consent has already happened in history (e.g., during the GWS, when saints backed competing claimants, and consequently none of them were popes, precisely because of the lack of universal consent.).

Moreover, theologians of the stature of a Billot or Alphonsus would have had these historical example in mind when writing about dogmatic facts and universal consent of the bishops.

For that reason, I don’t think the unfortunate reality you describe discredits the criteria of universal consent as the measuring stick of the legitimacy of any papacy (modernist or orthodox).

I think it does show tgat the Church has been led into an inextricable predicament which only our Lord’s intervention will solve.

Now THAT was an interesting insight!

Ultimately, you are raising the question:

“What about a claimant who’s papacy should be a dogmatic fact, but isn’t?”

That scenario never occurred to me before.

And I completely agree with your suggestion that a truly orthodox pope would never has his pontificate ratified by the universal moral unanimity of the bishops.

That's been my entire point here about Universal Acceptance, but taken from the opposite angle.  Let's take this analogy.  Lots of people hate Donald Trump; they can't stand his politics.  But how many of them actually think he's illegitimate? ... probably just a relatively-small number of frothing-at-the-mouth liberals, most of whom are probably Communists who deep down reject our entire form of government.  Most of them are like, well, I can't stand the guy, but unfortunately he was elected and he's the President.  That latter category count for "acceptance" ... even if they can't stand him.

Similarly, if this hypothetical conservative Pope were elected, sure he would be despised.  St. Pius X was himself despised by many liberals and Modernists.  But if they go so far as to reject him as Pope and reject his authority, then they are not even Catholics, and their opinion isn't to be counted against "Universal Acceptance".  You had the Old Catholics reject Vatican I.  Did their opinion matter?  No, because at the instant they rejected it, they ceased to be Catholic.

This is precisely why I have argued that there's no Universal Acceptance of Bergoglio.  Traditional Catholics as a group, IMO, the only REAL Catholics left in the world ... in terms of having retained the sensus Catholicus, reject these guys as being rules of faith, reject them as foreign and alien to them; that is why we have broken communion.  We do not recognize him as one of our own.  This goes far beyond just not seeing eye to eye with him or not liking him.  We don't really accept him as a Catholic ... except some perhaps on mere technicality, that he hasn't been officially sent packing.  And the only reason some continue to call him legitimate is on account of their understanding of how Popes are to be deposed or considered deposed, and feeling the need to recognize that he materially holds the papal office.  But that is not to be confused with his formally holding the office.  We reject his teaching, so we are rejecting the idea that he formally has authority over us.

The only question is if you wait for the church to reject their papacy 100% or you reject it yourself.

And just say that all trads rejected him universally what does that actually achieve?

And just say that all trads rejected him universally what does that actually achieve?

Peace and unity and common purpose among Traditional Catholics.

The movement would be keeping the Faith alive...and working together to do it.  So instead of having 3 masses from different groups in 1 city, you’d have 3 priests helping 3 different cities.  But that’s idealism.  The devil knows human nature and it’s easy for him to split us up by disagreements, which is what we have now. 

The movement would be keeping the Faith alive...and working together to do it.  So instead of having 3 masses from different groups in 1 city, you’d have 3 priests helping 3 different cities.  But that’s idealism.  The devil knows human nature and it’s easy for him to split us up by disagreements, which is what we have now.

The movement would be keeping the Faith alive...and working together to do it.  So instead of having 3 masses from different groups in 1 city, you’d have 3 priests helping 3 different cities.

Thank you so much Ladislaus and Pax Vobis.   Of course you point out that there would be disagreements but it is not idealism surely.  It is using our faith unitedly.   It seems to me this is what we MUST do.   We can't keep letting Pope Francis and all his sychophants continue to destroy the Church.   Oh I know that God has promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  Of course He won't.  But we have to use our faith the right way.   It is what we must do - surely!  WE are the Church Militant - WE have to do the fighting!