Read the Bible.

That man in Rome preaches a different gospel.  That man worships a pagan goddess which breaks first Commandment.

The others broke the first commandment too with pagan religions and false gods and goddesses accepted beside Jesus. 


Jesus is the only way.  He is the truth. 

I've said this before here much more succinctly.  Universal Acceptance?  By whom?

If you think Bergoglio is Catholic, then you're no judge of what's Catholic anymore and your consensus means nothing.

Besides that, there's hardly Universal PEACEFUL Acceptance, as these V2 papal claimants have caused nothing but division and strife and turmoil for faithful Catholics.  Whether you "accept" the technicality of his election, we've had a Traditional movement from the very beginning that does not accept him as a "Rule of Faith".  Billot, in articulating the principle states that it's rooted in the notion that Catholics as a whole cannot accept a false rule of faith.  Regardless of which of the "5 Opinions" you follow, and how you want to slice and dice that particular subject, it's quite clear that the Traditional movement has never accepted these men as rules of faith.

Universal Acceptance completely disproves Sedevacantism, whether 1958 SVism or Post 2013 "Benevacantist" Sedevacantism. Both these forms of sedevacantism are schismatic, while the 1958 version is also heretical.

Hardly, Siscoe.  UAP, as explained by Billot, is rooted in the notion that the Universal Church cannot accept a false rule of faith.  Of those who adhere to the Conciliar apostasy, only a small percentage believe that the Pope is the rule of faith (since they're Modernist heretics) or even believe that there's any rule of faith whatsoever outside of themselves and their own fancy.  Of those who still have enough Catholic faith left to believe in the Catholic papacy as rule of faith, the vast majority have question/concerns about whether Jorge Bergoglio is even Catholic, putting him squarely into papa dubius territory.  In fact, the very reason there's a Traditional movement is that large numbers of Catholics could not reconcile the Conciliar "Church" as squaring with their sensus Catholicus as being Catholic.  Whether they quibble about the technicalities or legalities surrounding the papa haereticus question is immaterial, since they wouldn't even be arguing about it if there weren't significant number of Catholics at least holding Bergoglio to be highly suspect of heresy.

You nasty sell-out, traitorous apostate, you, constantly deriding true Catholics as schismatics and heretics while carrying water for the Conciliar apostasy.  God will call you into account, and you'll be condemned alongside the apostates themselves when the Church is restored and the true nature of this Crisis has been exposed for all to see.  Recall how the Church has always anathematized not only the heretics but also those who enabled, favored, and failed to condemn them.

Of course, while there are some theologians who have opined in favor of UAP, there's no Magisterial endorsement of said position, and it remains only a theological opinon ... that is actually falsified by the inconvenient fact that we've had several historical scenarios where a rightful pope reigned, was taken into exile, and then a new one was elected in his place and "universally accepted" while the reigning pope had not resigned (in one case where the reigning pope protested the new election).  Unless you subscribe to the heresy that the Church can depose a Pope (outside of ministerially for heresy), those "universal acceptances" were invalid.

In fact, the closest thing we have to the Magisterium weighing in on the matter militates against UA.  Paul IV in cuм ex Apostolatus stated that a heretic Pope would be illegitimate even if he were accepted and given obedience to "by all" ... but that legislation would be moot, meaningless, and laughable, since acceptance and obedience by all would would prove (and according to some convalidate) the legitimacy of the suspect "Pope".

I can't remember if it was Cajetan or St. John of the Cross who wrote that sedevacantists should not be considered as schismatic if they would be willing to accept a Pope that was not suspect; in other words, a good Pope. 

I don't think that +ABL ever thought of sedevacantists as schismatic, but then he knew that there were serious issues and problems with the post-conciliar Popes, and the Church in general; namely, the Church being occupied by Modernists.  

You'll notice that Siscoe merely ignored my rebuttal of the UA argument and restated the opinions of a couple theologians.

Universal Episcopal Acceptance (UEA) is the simplest and shortest argument that manifestly demonstrates that, to anyone of good will open to the objective Truth.

.

The quote you gave mentions two things, not one. It says all the bishops and also the universal Church need to accept someone as pope in order for him to have universal peaceful acceptance. But Bergoglio enjoys neither. He is accepted as pope by public heretics dressed in red who are outside the Church due to modernism and profession of numerous related heresies. Moreover, he does not enjoy the acceptance of the universal Church either. The people you are claiming are the universal Church don't even believe in the Holy Eucharist, most of them, and think abortion is okay, LGBT activities are okay, divorce is okay, married priests are okay, contraception is okay, and socialism is okay. These people are not Catholic, since Catholicism is a religion that requires people to believe its dogmas in order to belong to it, and teaches that people who reject its dogmas automatically lose their membership in the Church.

On the contrary, among the tiny percentage of people who claim to be Catholic who actually can make a claim to actually being Catholic, due to their retention of Catholicism as it was taught before Vatican 2, nearly all of them don't believe Francis is their rule of Faith, and a significant percentage of them say outright that he isn't pope at all.

It really blows my mind to see anybody trying to claim that Francis is accepted as pope by the universal Church.

The quote you gave mentions two things, not one. It says all the bishops and also the universal Church need to accept someone as pope in order for him to have universal peaceful acceptance. But Bergoglio enjoys neither. He is accepted as pope by public heretics dressed in red who are outside the Church due to modernism and profession of numerous related heresies.

So, here's the question.  Were those who accepted Montini also all by and large heretics?  These same bishops just a few years prior you would consider to have binding authority, where if they all agreed on some doctrinal point in 1958, their "teaching" would be binding, but these same men (by and large) suddenly ceased to be Catholic by 1962 when they accepted Montini?  It's easy to apply lack of UA to Jorge Bergoglio, since many even Conciliar types are questioning whether he's a heretic.  But how about for Montini?  We'll put aside Roncalli since his status is disputed overall.