I have no idea but as far as my opinion, as far as I'm concerned, his ordination is also doubtful. But if he was ordained validly or not is altogether irrelevant any way, we may not listen to him as long as he preaches heresy, so that really makes no difference to traditional Catholics.

Like you said, and like most (all?) trads do, I will just continue to ignore whatever the Pope says or preaches. In the unlikely event he says something Catholic, I am quite sure it'll make the news or be broadcasted here on CI, at which time I would listen to what he has to say.

As for me personally, I do my Catholic duty and pray for him daily, that is what we are bound to do whether he is a heretic or not.

And one must be a priest to be consecrated as bishop, and one must be a bishop to be pope. So if Francis' ordination is doubtful, is his papacy not doubtful?

And one must be a priest to be consecrated as bishop, and one must be a bishop to be pope. So if Francis' ordination is doubtful, is his papacy not doubtful?

Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Being that even all the conciliar popes, having followed the established legislation in the matter, have been elected by all the cardinals, well, his word is all I need to believe that the pope is the pope. Although I admit that sometimes the conciliar popes test my faith, but that's just part of keeping the faith. In order to strengthen it, God loves to test our faith all the time. 

The problem with "R + R" is that its a really broad term.  But TBH, if we're talking particularly about the "SSPX Resistance" position, to be honest I agree with you.  I've tried to avoid saying too much about it here, both because this is an SSPX Resistance forum to some extent., and also because I'm a new convert, but I agree that that position is not really internally consistent.  I think the regular SSPX, and Sedevacnatists each have a more consistent position than the "SSPX Resistance."

But that's the question.  Is "R + R" just +Williamson's "have nothing to do with Rome at all?"  Or does it also entail +Lefebvre?  Does it include +Fellay?  Does it include FSSP types who do believe in hermeneutic of continuity at some level, but yet disagree with the way the modern hierarchy interprets and applies the council?  Does it even include John Paul II type Catholics who don't like Francis?  What exactly is resisting?  Recognizing has a fairly obvious definition, but resisting doesn't.

R&R certainly is a broad label, but it suffices. Remember that in their effort to justify their position, the sedes often quote +ABL, same as they quote numerous of the popes, saints and Fathers, none of whom were sede btw. Now consider what the force of such quotes would be were they to quote sede popes, or sede saints, or sede Fathers, now *that* would be something. But there are no such authorities to quote.

The second "R" means simply, resisting the pope's errors. Recognize that he is the pope, resist his heretical acts and teachings, just as we would resist Billy Grahm's teachings, or Martin Luther's teachings, or any other heretic's teachings.

This position is unacceptable to sedes because they wrongfully believe that a pope, speaking as pope, cannot teach or fall into heresy, some believe that even as a private individual he cannot fall into heresy, even many non-sedes believe or are confused, thinking that this is a doctrine or dogma or otherwise somehow taught by the Church, when the reality is, this idea was only taught by some theologians during the past century or two. But because they believe it to be a teaching of the Church, they condemn R&R for the second "R".  

 

Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Being that even all the conciliar popes, having followed the established legislation in the matter, have been elected by all the cardinals, well, his word is all I need to believe that the pope is the pope. Although I admit that sometimes the conciliar popes test my faith, but that's just part of keeping the faith. In order to strengthen it, God loves to test our faith all the time.

But then, why does canon law list impediments that can prevent an election from being valid, if any election is automatically valid just by the fact that it happened? Why is it a requirement that a candidate be consecrated bishop at all if his election automatically makes him the true pope even if he is not one? By your logic, that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes means that the fact that an election occurred means it must be valid, even an election where the cardinals were held at sword point and forced to vote for someone, even if that someone was a Muslim or some other nonsense, would be wholly valid and the man elected the true pope. Of course, that cannot be.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes is actually only referring to elections that are valid, so it doesn't answer the question of if an election was valid at all. The constitution addresses beliefs at the time that a validly elected pope only became the pope and was granted his jurisdiction upon his coronation, rather than his election. It doesn't mean that every election, no matter how many impediments, is automatically valid. 

But then, why does canon law list impediments that can prevent an election from being valid, if any election is automatically valid just by the fact that it happened? Why is it a requirement that a candidate be consecrated bishop at all if his election automatically makes him the true pope even if he is not one? By your logic, that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes means that the fact that an election occurred means it must be valid, even an election where the cardinals were held at sword point and forced to vote for someone, even if that someone was a Muslim or some other nonsense, would be wholly valid and the man elected the true pope. Of course, that cannot be.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes is actually only referring to elections that are valid, so it doesn't answer the question of if an election was valid at all. The constitution addresses beliefs at the time that a validly elected pope only became the pope and was granted his jurisdiction upon his coronation, rather than his election. It doesn't mean that every election, no matter how many impediments, is automatically valid.

But per the words I noted from V.A.C., we are assured of no impediments to the election. *That's* the whole purpose of the legislation, it has no other purpose than to lay down the law of papal elections. We do not have to worry about impediments, thanks to that legislation.

Otherwise we would "why is" and "what if" forever, as would have all Catholics for the last 2k years for that matter, all the while, the whole Catholic world for the last 2k years would be never knowing who the pope is. Thankfully, we have no need whatsoever of ever concerning ourselves with any of that.





 

We know that V.A.S can only be referring to valid elections, because otherwise it would also refer to the elections of anti-popes, etc. Many anti-popes were elected by real cardinals, and every part of their election was done properly and they were eligible as candidates, except only for the fact that there was already a pope. So clearly just the fact that you were elected by the college of cardinals does not instantly make you pope, it only does so if the election was valid to begin with.

Agreed, yet the process in place is what we have to go by, it's all we have to go by. For me, I have absolutely no reason or interest in "What iffing" it. We already know that pretty much the entire hierarchy has corrupted themselves, so if on that account if they broke the law and elected a pope who was impeded from being elected, then  the result is that the pope is the pope albeit illicitly and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Since there is nothing that can be done about it, there is no sense being concerned about something no one can do anything about - right?

In a previous discussion about V.A.S., Stubborn was so committed to his stupid understanding of the law that he refused to agree that the person elected pope has to be a living man, since the law did not explicitly make this condition.

In a previous discussion about V.A.S., Stubborn was so committed to his stupid understanding of the law that he refused to agree that the person elected pope has to be a living man, since the law did not explicitly make this condition.

Do tell. I know I can be pretty stupid oh great one, but I don't recall that moment of stupidity. Good thing you do.

You offer yet more value added to this discussion I see.