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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16

Author Topic: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.  (Read 9920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Reputation: +1893/-1750
  • Gender: Male
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
« on: March 20, 2019, 01:57:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope
    Robert Siscoe March 18, 2019 One Comment

    • 448
      Shares
    • 442

    This is Part I in a two-part series. Read Part II here.

    Near the end of the 19th century, the High Church Anglican and virulent anti-Catholic scholar, Rev. Dr. Richard Littledale, dean of Windsor, published a book titled, The Petrine Claims. The book examined the history of the papacy in light of canon law, papal bulls, and accepted axioms of Catholic theology and concluded that more than 100 popes, recognized as legitimate popes by the Church, were in fact false popes. The causes of invalidity ranged from simony to pre- or post-election heresy to doubtful or manifestly illicit elections. Littledale further concluded that the last legitimate cardinal elector (i.e., one appointed by a true pope) died in the 16th century, and, as a result, the succession of lawfully and validly elected popes ended with the death of Clement VII (d. 1534).

    The force of Dr. Littledale’s arguments, supported by his reputation as one of the most eminent scholars of the day, persuaded many of his fellow Anglicans that the line of legitimate popes had come to an end, and it likely served as a stumbling block for those involved in the Oxford Movement who were considering entering the Church.
    Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., took up the challenge to refute Dr. Littledale’s claims, and he did so with one doctrine: the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope. In his reply, which was published in The Tablet, he said Catholics have no need to be troubled by Dr. Littledale’s seemingly impressive arguments, nor do they oblige anyone to embark upon “a complicated historical inquiry” in order to “know for certain that the Pope who now rules the Church is the true Pope.” “Such fears are needless,” Fr. Smith informs his reader, since:
    Quote
    [W]e have only to ask ourselves in reference to any particular Pope — either the living Pope whom we are called upon to obey, or some past Pope in whom we are historically interested — whether the true Church adheres or adhered to him, or not, and then we can be sure at once, independently of all detailed historical investigations, whether the title by which he entered upon the See of Peter was valid or not.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Fr. Smith went on to explain that because the Church is an indefectible visible society, it can never adhere to a false head. There’s no need to study canon law, or spend years researching ancient Latin texts buried away in archives, to be absolutely certain that a particular pope was (or is) the true pope. All that is required to ascertain his legitimacy is to find out if he was recognized as pope by the Church. If the answer is yes, that alone provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, as well a corresponding degree of certitude that all the conditions required for him to have become popes were satisfied — such as the condition that the papal office was vacant at the time. And the certitude of the pope’s legitimacy occurs the moment the entire Church learns of his election, provided it is not at once contested.
    If we apply this doctrine to Francis, it proves that his election was valid, since the entire Church accepted him as pope following his election. The concerns over the St. Gallen Mafia and Benedict’s abdication did not arise until the following year, which was too late. By then, Francis’s legitimacy as pope had already been established with infallible certainty. And since the legitimacy of a pope logically proves that all the conditions required for him to have become pope were satisfied, the universal acceptance of Francis following his election proves that Benedict’s abdication was accepted by Christ. Hence, all the claims that Benedict’s resignation was invalid due to substantial error, forced resignation, grammatical errors, ambiguous Latin words in the official renunciation, or anything else are proven to be erroneous by the universal acceptance of Francis as pope.
    The doctrine of the peaceful and universal acceptance, when properly understood, proves beyond any possible doubt that Francis’s election was valid and refutes each and every objection that has been raised against it. Those who understand this “sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), and accept it, will know who the true pope is, while those who “turn their hearing away from the truth” by rejecting it will continue to be “tossed to and fro and carried about” by the latest conspiracy theory or fallacious argument.
    Before continuing, I should note that there was a time when I also had doubts, or at least questions, about the legitimacy of the Francis pontificate and was one of the first to raise the questions about Benedict’s abdication that are being widely discussed today.[1] But after studying the matter further, there is no doubt whatsoever that Benedict’s abdication was ratified by Christ, Who stripped him of the papal office and conferred it upon Francis on the day of his election.
    In Part I, we will see how the “universal acceptance” of a pope is understood according to the mind of the Church, as explained by some of her best theologians. In Part II, we reply to recent objections that have been raised against the doctrine and against its application to the pontificate of Francis in particular, and we see how easily all such objections are answered by a correct understanding of the doctrine.
    Papal Election and Its Acceptance
    The renowned Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, wrote what is likely the most thorough treatise of the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope that has ever been penned, explaining each aspect of the doctrine with Thomistic precision. He compares the election of a pope by the cardinals to a doctrine defined by a council. He then explains that just as the infallibility of a conciliar decree is dependent upon its acceptance by the Roman pontiff, so too the infallible certitude that the legitimacy of the man elected by a conclave is dependent upon his acceptance by the Church. In both cases, it is the acceptance that ultimately provides the infallible certitude, and which renders the proposition de fide. Because of this, John of St. Thomas goes on to say:[/font][/font][/size]
    Quote
    Wherefore, if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [i.e., that the one elected is the true pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the Pope himself defines anything. For it is not [just] any acceptance on the part of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the Pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.”[2]
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    The Legitimacy of a Pope is a Dogmatic Fact
    As soon as the entire Church accepts the man as pope, his legitimacy becomes a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of infallibility. Fr. E. Sylvester Berry provides the following explanation of dogmatic facts:[/font][/font][/size]
    Quote
    A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the Vatican Council truly ecuмenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecuмenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact. [3]
    ... (read on)

    https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/
    https://onepeterfive.com/objection-answer-francis-pope/
    Logged
    "We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your Priests are everywhere subjected [above all by schismatic sedevacantists - Nishant Xavier], for the profanation, by conscious neglect or Terrible Acts of Sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the Public Crimes of Nations who resist the Rights and The Teaching Authority of the Church which You have founded." - Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Lord Jesus.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #1 on: March 20, 2019, 09:24:32 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Unfortunately for you and for Siscoe, the legitimacy of Francis as the rule of faith is NOT accepted peacefully and universally by the Church.

    Such a condition would have applied to Pius XII for instance.  Catholics everywhere accepted him as pope with the certainty of faith and never even gave it a second thought.

    Many Catholics have disputed the legitimacy of the V2 Popes ... based on serious reasons that constitute positive doubt.  Where there's positive doubt, there can be no certainty of faith.  So, for instance, when +Lefebvre or +Williamson or even +Tissier entertained the possibility that illegitimacy MIGHT be true and say that some day it might be declared by the Church, the certainty of faith is immediately GONE ... by those very statements.  If you have the certainty of faith, you absolutely cannot question it any more than you might question the dogma of the Holy Trinity.  SSPX spokesmen have often mentioned giving the "benefit of the doubt" to the V2 papal claimants.  With certainty of faith, there can be NO doubt.  Consequently, that statement alone demonstrates that they are not sedeplenists.  So this argument actually backfires on the SSPX.

    Finally, universally accepted by WHOM?  By a Concilair Church whose members (by their OWN polls) are at least 90-95% NOT Catholic, since they deny one dogma of the faith or another.  That would be like saying that if an Arian "Pope" had been elected in the days where 90% of the Church had fallen away to Arianism, that Pope would be legitimate due to their "peaceful acceptance".  Just as in that crisis, you would have faithful remnant Catholics disputing his legitimacy, so too we have had that for the V2 papal claimants.

    Archbishop Lefebvre:
    Quote
    “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

    Does this sound like a man who considers the legitimacy of Paul VI to be a dogmatic fact?  Absolutely not.  When he says that "it is not impossible" that Paul VI was illegitimate, that clearly proves +Lefebvre did not hold it as dogmatic fact ... since the certainty of dogmatic fact would absolutely preclude the "possibility" of the contary.
    Logged

    Offline ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 690
    • Reputation: +931/-118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #2 on: March 20, 2019, 10:03:33 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • The very fact that Siscoe and Salsa have to write a book and produce volumes of "articles" like the one above, trying to prove Francis is pope, shows that "universal acceptance" doesn't exist.

    They've spent the last five years or so trying to "quell the tide" of sedevacantism.   Why?  Because he isn't universally accepted.

    My point is that this argument is as weak as it gets.
    Logged
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #3 on: March 20, 2019, 11:24:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • To be fair, Sisco and Salza (and Fr Chazal) are doing a good service of prudence in pointing out the limits of the sedevacantist theory.  If someone doesn't rebuke the rabid, dogmatic sedevacantists, they would anathematize every single non-sede Trad (if they haven't already).

    I don't agree with every conclusion of Sisco/Salza, just like I don't agree with every conclusion of the Diamond Bros, but their research is great.

    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #4 on: March 20, 2019, 11:28:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ihsv on March 20, 2019, 10:03:33 AM
    The very fact that Siscoe and Salsa have to write a book and produce volumes of "articles" like the one above, trying to prove Francis is pope, shows that "universal acceptance" doesn't exist.

    They've spent the last five years or so trying to "quell the tide" of sedevacantism.   Why?  Because he isn't universally accepted.

    My point is that this argument is as weak as it gets.

    Right.  Absolutely, the principle is legitimate, that of peaceful universal acceptance.  Problem is that the principle doesn't actually apply here, because such an acceptance does not exist.

    If you asked Traditional Catholics if they believed with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, i.e. whether they would believe it with the same certainty as that with which they believe the Holy Trinity, whether they would be willing to stake their eternal souls on it, you'd get maybe 1% who would actually say this.  THAT is what "dogmatic fact" legitimacy means, that you're pretty much confident enough to stake your soul and your eternal salvation on it.  Consequently, nearly the entire Traditional Catholic world holds the Bergoglio legitimacy to be in a certain degree of doubt, i.e. as NOT being dogmatic fact.  Yes, most Traditional Catholics of the R&R variety will OPINE in favor of legitimacy, but that is a HUGE STEP REMOVED FROM DOGMATIC CERTAINTY.  ergo, no dogmatic fact.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #5 on: March 20, 2019, 11:36:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 11:24:44 AM
    To be fair, Sisco and Salza (and Fr Chazal) are doing a good service of prudence in pointing out the limits of the sedevacantist theory.  If someone doesn't rebuke the rabid, dogmatic sedevacantists, they would anathematize every single non-sede Trad (if they haven't already).

    I don't agree with every conclusion of Sisco/Salza, just like I don't agree with every conclusion of the Diamond Bros, but their research is great.

    There are small handfuls of those types of "dogmatic" sedevacantists, and many reasonable sedevacantists themselves argue against them.  S&S grossly overstate their case and are trying to present a case for RABID DOGMATIC SEDEPLENISM.  You don't combat one evil by promoting the exact polar opposite evil.

    Father Chazal made a good case against DOGMATIC sedevacantism, but actually had a balanced approach by conceding that many sedevacantist concerns are extremely valid.  S&S, on the other hand, are foaming at the mouth with their own brand of rabid sedeplenism.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #6 on: March 20, 2019, 11:47:22 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I think the % of dogmatic sedevacantists is much larger than you think.  Anyone who would not attend an "una cuм" mass is one.  Anyone who would only attend a sede chapel is one.  The sede priests support these ideals and gradually the laity accept the extreme positions.  90% of the conversations i've had with sedes end with them drawing some type of line in the sand and it's "their way or the highway" and anyone else is a heretic.  I've never had ONE sede (not one, including on this site) admit that sedevacantism is a theory and it's only probable and not fact.  This is divisive and dangerous.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #7 on: March 20, 2019, 12:10:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote
    Right.  Absolutely, the principle is legitimate, that of peaceful universal acceptance.  Problem is that the principle doesn't actually apply here, because such an acceptance does not exist.
    The idea of universal acceptance has to do with the conclave results.  If person A is accepted the day he was elected, then he's the pope.  (Unless it comes out later that there were issues with the conclave).  It is wrong to base "universal acceptance" on a day to day or year to year basis.  Because the pope's status does not depend on his personal sanctity or lack thereof.  Was he elected legitimately or not? - this is the ONLY question which the "peaceful acceptance" principle can apply.  The Church is not a democracy where the status of the pope is good on Monday but by Thursday it is in doubt, based on the whim of the people and his popularity.

    Quote
    If you asked Traditional Catholics if they believed with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, i.e. whether they would believe it with the same certainty as that with which they believe the Holy Trinity, whether they would be willing to stake their eternal souls on it, you'd get maybe 1% who would actually say this.  THAT is what "dogmatic fact" legitimacy means, that you're pretty much confident enough to stake your soul and your eternal salvation on it.
    If you base your acceptance of the pope on his personal sanctity or orthodoxy, then yes, your litmus test would be accurate.  But none of this matters.
    Also, no catholic's eternal salvation depends on answering the question:  "Who is pope?" or "Is person x a true pope?"  That's ridiculous to assert.  Church history shows that saints were on both sides of the debate when there were 3 men claiming the papacy.  It's not the job of any lay, priest or bishop to figure out the status of the pope - this is the hierarchy's alone, since they are part of the govt and they elected him.

    Sedes think that the status of the pope is more important than it is, therefore their conclusions must necessarily be extreme, since their zeal for Truth is misguided.  In reality, a bad pope or no pope yields the same result - a lack of true spiritual leadership which requires true catholics to stick to Tradition.  This challenge is enough to tackle.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #8 on: March 20, 2019, 12:28:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 12:10:11 PM
    The idea of universal acceptance has to do with the conclave results.  If person A is accepted the day he was elected, then he's the pope.

    No it does not.  It deals generally with the notion that the Church cannot accept a false rule of faith, i.e. a false pope.  Even if the conclave results were not challenged, if the Church didn't recognize the electee as Catholic, there would be lacking the acceptance.

    Not to mention that there was a lot of question regarding the 1958 Conclave results that brought us Roncalli.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #9 on: March 20, 2019, 12:30:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 12:10:11 PM
    Because the pope's status does not depend on his personal sanctity or lack thereof.  Was he elected legitimately or not? - this is the ONLY question which the "peaceful acceptance" principle can apply.  The Church is not a democracy where the status of the pope is good on Monday but by Thursday it is in doubt, based on the whim of the people and his popularity.

    This has nothing to do with "whim" and "popularity", and even S&S would tell you you're wrong here.  If at any time the Pope became a heretic during his reign and the Church would repudiate him as such, i.e. cease to recognize him as a Catholic and head of the Church, then that would be an indicate that there's no longer peaceful universal acceptance.

    No, it's not about his popularity nor personal sanctity.  You're really butchering this question, Pax.  It's about whether the Church recognizes him as a Catholic and a member of the Church, and therefore a rule of faith for the entire Church.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #10 on: March 20, 2019, 12:32:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 12:10:11 PM
    Also, no catholic's eternal salvation depends on answering the question:  "Who is pope?" or "Is person x a true pope?"  

    This is absolutely untrue.  While it's possible that there be material error regarding the identity of the true pope, in general Catholics' salvation depends upon recognizing the living rule of faith at any given time.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #11 on: March 20, 2019, 12:38:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 12:10:11 PM
    Sedes think that the status of the pope is more important than it is

    Archbishop Lefebvre:
    Quote
    “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
    Quote
    “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #12 on: March 20, 2019, 12:39:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Even if the conclave results were not challenged, if the Church didn't recognize the electee as Catholic, there would be lacking the acceptance.
    Ok, but this has to be challenged from the get-go, from day 1.  (Not saying you're saying this) but one cannot say "He's not catholic (from what he said today or recently), therefore, retroactively, I don't accept his papacy."  The fact that theologians in the past debated the question of 1) if a pope could be a heretic and 2) what would happen if he lost his faith? shows that this "universal acceptance" principle cannot apply to a pope once he's been elected.  If it could, then all their debates were a waste of time.  We would just react as follows:  As soon as a pope becomes unorthodox, then boom, his papacy never existed and we ignore him completely.  ...But there's no example in Church history for this reaction. 

    Also, how do you measure "universal peaceful acceptance"?  What is the % used?  Do you take a poll?  Do you vote?  It sounds nice, but is practically impossible to make work.

    Quote
    Not to mention that there was a lot of question regarding the 1958 Conclave results that brought us Roncalli.
    Ok, but that doesn't matter now and doesn't affect the papacy of +Francis.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #13 on: March 20, 2019, 12:41:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 12:39:05 PM
    Ok, but this has to be challenged from the get-go, from day 1.

    No it does not.  This is based only on the thesis that it's not possible for a Pope at any given time to lose the faith and cease to be a Catholic.  That is not proven but is a pious opinion held by man.  IF it is in fact possible, then it's also possible (and necessary) that at the time it happens the Church would cease to accept him as Pope.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.
    « Reply #14 on: March 20, 2019, 12:44:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2019, 12:39:05 PM
    Also, how do you measure "universal peaceful acceptance"?  What is the % used?

    It's not a mathematical formula obviously.  Imagine yourself living during the reign of Pius XII.  No sane Catholic would ever give it a second thought about whether he was a legitimate pope.

    Now compare that with the view that Traditional Catholics (those who keep the Traditional faith) have with regard to the V2 papal claimants.  Questions, doubts, +Lefebvre saying it's not impossible that they're illegitimate, probably 1% of Traditional Catholics who might assert a certainty of faith that Bergoglio is pope.

    That first mindset is what constitutes "universal peaceful acceptance".  Contrast that with that second midset regarding Bergoglio.  Are these anywhere nearly the same thing?

    Peaceful means that there's absolutely no churn, no disquiet about the question, that no minds are troubled by the question, that the question doesn't even arise in the minds of Catholics.  That's the meaning of "peaceful" (not whether or not arms are being taken up).  We absolutely do NOT have that with Bergoglio.  Heck, I've seen Novus Ordo writers question whether Bergoglio was a heretic after Amoris Laetitia.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
    « previous next »