I believe the Archbishop might be referring to this article:
Why 'universal and peaceful acceptance' doesn't prove Francis is pope - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/why-universal-and-peaceful-acceptance-doesnt-prove-francis-is-pope/)
Universal AcceptancePretty sure this was a meme that got debunked a long time ago.
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.
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.
You'll notice that Siscoe merely ignored my rebuttal of the UA argument and restated the opinions of a couple theologians.Happens every time. 2V just ignored my questions on voting for satan. Mark79 ignored the questions about the nuclear hoax.
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 reader will notice Ladislaus rejects every teaching of theologians he disagrees with as "their opinion", while simultaneously trying to bind us to his conclusions as if they have the authoritative force of Magisterial teachings.
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.
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.
First, address Msgr. Van Noort's teaching quoted above, or have the honesty to admit you can't, and that his teaching refutes your opinion. He clearly says the OUM is infallible in declaring the Pope is the Pope.
Second, there is +Billot's teaching, and your modernist revisionism of it. +Billot refutes sedevacantism, period. Read what he wrote refuting Savonarola. Savonarola argued like you do: (1) Pope Alexander VI is a public heretic (2) Public heretics can't be Pope (3) Therefore, Pope Alexander VI is not Pope. Savonarola's root error, beside his schismatic attitude, was in elevating his private judgment above the judgment of the OUM of the Church. +Billot refutes it like this (1) The Church accepts Pope Alexander VI (2) God can never permit that the Church accepts as Pontiff him who really is not. (3) Therefore, Pope Alexander VI truly is Pope.
A few other sectarians also did not accept the Popes, and there have been those who've rejected all the Papacies going back to Pope Bl. Pius IX and beyond. That does nothing to militate against UEA. It is the acceptance of the Residential Catholic Episcopate (Bishops who constitute the OUM) that counts, and these Bishops accept all the last 12 to 15 Popes or so. Thus, post 1870 sedevacantism is refuted in the same way as post 1958 as post 2013.
I'm not Siscoe, but you can keep thinking I am if you want. It matters nothing to me. I agree with Siscoe's article on this subject, though. He and others have written about UEA, including numerous Pre-Vatican II writers/theologians.
Anonymous Catholic, read it again more carefully: "the unanimous assent of all the cardinals" - the Cardinals are not infallible. The Bishops collectively are. That's the indefectibifility/infalliblity of the OUM.
Here is +ABL: "Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians. The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades."
From: https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm +ABL probably meant to include the Bishops too. Anyway, the teaching of Msgr. Noort is clear, and he explains the OUM is infallible in declaring Pope Ven. Pius XII to be Pope. To be a sede, you have to reject various dogmatic Truths. sad.
.
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.
Alexander VI wasn’t a heretic no matter what Savonarola thought. What was his heresy? He may have been accused of being a bad pope and sinner, but he wasn’t a heretic. Siscoe, do yourself a favor and read the definitive life of Pope Alexander VI by monsignor Peter De Roo in 5 volumes: “Material for a history of Pope Alexander VI”.
I counsel you, Quo, to read what Savonarola wrote: “The Church is filled with abominations, from the crown of her head to the soles of her feet, yet not only do you neglect to cure her of her ailments, but instead you pay homage to the very source of the evils which pollute her. Wherefore, the Lord is greatly angered and has for long left the Church without a shepherd. I now herby testify, in the word of the Lord, that Alexander is no pope, nor can he be regarded as one. I declare that he is not a Christian, and does not believe in the existence of God, and thus far exceeds the limits of infidelity.” Savonarola was burnt at the stake as a heretic himself. Pope Alexander VI was truly the Pope.
Of course he wasn't a heretic. And the way we prove that infallibly was that Pope Alexander VI had UA. If not, and without UA, almost any Pope in history can become "doubtful" when a few modern sede and sede-lite benevacantists deny his Papacy. We have a poster here, God bless and enlighten him, who recently denied some Pope from several centuries ago. Others reacted furiously to it, and it was certainly an objective error, but that's where denying the doctrine of UA necessarily leads: to heresy and apostasy from Jesus Christ and His Church. Come back from the brink, for the love of God and your Souls. Pray more Rosaries every day to learn and be enlightened about the Truth.
As for your other quotes, they are only excusing the culpability for schism, not the objective fact of schism itself. In the same way, an Orthodox Christian in good faith who sincerely believes the Holy Roman Church supposedly lapsed into heresy, may still be excused from subjective mortal sin if he was born in that error and could not reasonably know better. But, once he can, he should. And the same applies to you. And just like it would be unacceptable for Catholics who know better to lapse into Orthodoxy, so likewise to lapse into sedevacantism. The fact of Universal Acceptance, as +Billot teaches incontrovertibly resolves all doubt (so all doubters of good will must cease to doubt, just like all doubters ceased after the Great Western Schism ended and a single Pope received UA) and infallibly proves the existence of all the required conditions. In other words, it proves the Pope is not and never was a heretic and thus is True Pope.
May God bless and enlighten you.
I counsel you, Quo, to read what Savonarola wrote: “The Church is filled with abominations, from the crown of her head to the soles of her feet, yet not only do you neglect to cure her of her ailments, but instead you pay homage to the very source of the evils which pollute her. Wherefore, the Lord is greatly angered and has for long left the Church without a shepherd. I now herby testify, in the word of the Lord, that Alexander is no pope, nor can he be regarded as one. I declare that he is not a Christian, and does not believe in the existence of God, and thus far exceeds the limits of infidelity.” Savonarola was burnt at the stake as a heretic himself. Pope Alexander VI was truly the Pope.
Of course he wasn't a heretic. And the way we prove that infallibly was that Pope Alexander VI had UA. No, the way we prove it is that there wasn’t any evidence that he was guilty of manifest heresy. None.
If not, and without UA, almost any Pope in history can become "doubtful" when a few modern sede and sede-lite benevacantists deny his Papacy.
No, not a few, most people who actually profess the Catholic Faith have at least a doubt about Bergoglio’s legitimacy. That’s not universal acceptance and it’s certainly not peaceful.
We have a poster here, God bless and enlighten him, who recently denied some Pope from several centuries ago. Others reacted furiously to it, and it was certainly an objective error, but that's where denying the doctrine of UA necessarily leads: to heresy and apostasy from Jesus Christ and His Church. Come back from the brink, for the love of God and your Souls. Pray more Rosaries every day to learn and be enlightened about the Truth.
As for your other quotes, they are only excusing the culpability for schism, not the objective fact of schism itself. In the same way, an Orthodox Christian in good faith who sincerely believes the Holy Roman Church supposedly lapsed into heresy, may still be excused from subjective mortal sin if he was born in that error and could not reasonably know better. But, once he can, he should. And the same applies to you. And just like it would be unacceptable for Catholics who know better to lapse into Orthodoxy, so likewise to lapse into sedevacantism.
As I posted for Meg above:
Sedevacantists are not schismatic even if mistaken
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
The fact of Universal Acceptance, as +Billot teaches incontrovertibly resolves all doubt (so all doubters of good will must cease to doubt, just like all doubters ceased after the Great Western Schism ended and a single Pope received UA) and infallibly proves the existence of all the required conditions. In other words, it proves the Pope is not and never was a heretic and thus is True Pope.
Are you contending that Bergoglio is not, nor ever was a heretic? Or are you admitting that a heretic can’t be a pope, but because Bergoglio supposedly has UA, he can’t possibly be a heretic?
May God bless and enlighten you.
May God help you understand and publicly admit the truth.
The latter. Since Pope Francis is accepted by the 5000 Bishops of the Universal Church who constitute the Episcopal College/Residential Episcopate/OUM of the Church, the Church has infallibly declared that Pope Francis is the True Pope. Since he is a True Pope, it clearly follows that he cannot be a heretic.
entrusted to me by the Cardinals
No, it isn't.
Step I: Identify the OUM of the Church.
1. Dogma teaches us that the OUM of the Church (Bishops appointed by the Pope) must always exist.
2. Reason clearly shows that the only candidates for this Residential Episcopate are the 5000 Catholic Bishops.
3. Therefore, the 5000 Bishops of the Church constitute the OUM of the Church.
Step II: Discern if the OUM accepts Pope Francis.
1. Pope Benedict XIV teaches in Ex Quo that naming the Pope in the Canon of the Mass sufficiently recognizes him.
2. It is a verifiable fact that the 5000 Bishops of the Church (with moral unanimity) recognize the Pope in this way.
3. Therefore, it clearly follows from both of these that Pope Francis is recognized as Pope by the Episcopate.
Step III. Apply Universal Acceptance principle.
1. If a person is recognized as Pope by the Episcopate, he is truly Pope.
2. Pope Francis is recognized as Pope by the Episcopate.
3. He is truly Pope (he was not a heretic when elected).
No circularity involved.
Also, regarding what you added to edit your post, Pope Francis did not say "sodomy" is just fine. He even condemned "fαɢɢօtry". But, if the Pope makes a mistake when speaking non-infallibly, Bishops, Cardinals, Priests and laity can push back against that error. That does nothing to shake the fact of his election itself, which is proved as above.
Recognizing legitimacy to Bergoglio has only one final beneficiary: Bergoglio himself – Ecclesia Militans (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2024/08/27/recognizing-legitimacy-to-bergoglio-has-only-one-final-beneficiary-bergoglio-himself/)The only thing surprising in this article is in the comments.
I believe the Archbishop might be referring to this article:
Why 'universal and peaceful acceptance' doesn't prove Francis is pope - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/why-universal-and-peaceful-acceptance-doesnt-prove-francis-is-pope/)
The only thing surprising in this article is in the comments.
It appears Sean Johnson now considers himself a "practical sedevacantist" and he assists at SSPV.
Tony’s is a good argument, but (I would argue) not conclusive.The previously discussed contrary opinions of LaGrange and Billuart give me pause, and prevent me from certitude in the matter.At present, if anyone asks me whether Francis is pope, I can only respond, “There seem to be strong arguments on either side, but I think the matter is capable of question.”I would only add that, unlike Tony, I would extend that dilemma to ALL the conciliar (putative) popes.And since a putative pope is to be regarded as no pope at all, I guess you could say I’m a “practical sedevacantist,” even if not a theoretical one. Somehow that designation no longer inspires horror in the Francis era.
Minimally, they would take my approach, and like +Lefebvre, at least acknowledge the matter of Francis’s legitimacy is capable of question. By the way, this is also the position of the SSPV (which is where I now attend Mass).
Very good to see he's had a change of heart.
.The whole UPA or UA or whatever is not only ridiculous, it's useless. The presumption is validity, not invalidity. All the cardinals who voted in the conclave accepted his election and we must also. Period.
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.
“It appears Sean Johnson now considers himself a "practical sedevacantist" and he assists at SSPV.”What's good about it? Pray for the poor man.
Good for him!
The only thing surprising in this article is in the comments.Thank you for sharing, Vermont2. I totally missed that Sean had left a comment there until you shared this. :cowboy:
It appears Sean Johnson now considers himself a "practical sedevacantist" and he assists at SSPV.
Tony’s is a good argument, but (I would argue) not conclusive.The previously discussed contrary opinions of LaGrange and Billuart give me pause, and prevent me from certitude in the matter.At present, if anyone asks me whether Francis is pope, I can only respond, “There seem to be strong arguments on either side, but I think the matter is capable of question.”I would only add that, unlike Tony, I would extend that dilemma to ALL the conciliar (putative) popes.And since a putative pope is to be regarded as no pope at all, I guess you could say I’m a “practical sedevacantist,” even if not a theoretical one. Somehow that designation no longer inspires horror in the Francis era.
Minimally, they would take my approach, and like +Lefebvre, at least acknowledge the matter of Francis’s legitimacy is capable of question. By the way, this is also the position of the SSPV (which is where I now attend Mass).
Very good to see he's had a change of heart.
What's good about it? Pray for the poor man.My only concern is that he's gone anti-Archbishop Thuc (unless that was his position, but I don't recall).
The whole UPA or UA or whatever is not only ridiculous, it's useless. The presumption is validity, not invalidity. All the cardinals who voted in the conclave accepted his election and we must also. Period.
And no, the pope is *not* the rule of faith, I can't believe this is even an idea, particularly among sedes.
That whole idea was trashed during about (iirc) 170 pages in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598973/#msg598973), wherein all of Lad's posts were deleted because he was pushing the ridiculous idea the whole time, which left standing only about 1/2 the original thread.
My only concern is that he's gone anti-Archbishop Thuc (unless that was his position, but I don't recall).
I concur!
How has he gone anti-Archbishop Thuc when the SSPV does not accept the Thuc line?
How has he gone anti-Archbishop Thuc when the SSPV does not accept the Thuc line?Huh? Isn't anti-Thuc the same thing as anti-Thuc line? Maybe I wasn't clear, but that is exactly what I'm referring to here.
You have a radical and unorthodox view of the papacy, if not outright heretical. Frankly, I don’t know how a priest can give you the sacraments in good conscience.Huh? I'm not the one without a rule of faith for the last 60 years, but I'm the one with a radical and unorthodox view of the papacy? I think the above link says what needed to be said on the subject.
Huh? Isn't anti-Thuc the same thing as anti-Thuc line? Maybe I wasn't clear, but that is exactly what I'm referring to here.
This is not always the case for all who assist at SSPV, but if he's chosen to go to SSPV and the SSPV does not accept the Thuc line, then that would mean that there is a good chance he also does not accept the Thuc line (ie. anti-Thuc).
Oops. I read the opposite in what you actually wrote. Sorry.No problem CK. I'm sure we've all done that at least once or twice. ;)