CathInfo.com

Since I know you accept this teaching in principle, we can move on. The burden of proof is on you to show that,

1. Despite the clear statement of Pope Benedict XIV that the solemn act of praying una cuм the Pope is indeed "an affirmative indication that recognizes him as the head of the Church, vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter", that somehow this is not an act of recognition sufficient for the condition to apply, and moreover that,

2. Despite all appearances to the contrary, all bishops who are candidates remaining who have a mission (even supplied, for the sake of the argument) from a Pope, who still possess ordinary jurisdiction, somehow do not recognize Pope Francis in this sufficient way.

Remember, there are about 5000 bishops that pray in communion with the Pope, you have said in the past and on this thread, you think some bishops in communion with Pope Francis still have not lost the Faith. Let's say of these only 1%, that is 50, have not lost the Faith and are relevant.

Even with all these assumptions as you like, the thesis that there is some underground bishop somewhere no one knows of, which is ad-hoc and arbitrary, even if it were true, would not in any way suffice to undercut moral unanimity. Secondly, such a bishop would necessarily be even excluded from consideration, according to Fr. Hunter's teaching above, who is talking of bishops whom the faithful can see and discern as either recognizing the Pope or not.

Therefore, moral unanimity exists.

But you yourself grant that, if the fact of universal recognition is verified in the concrete, then we know with infallible certainty that all conditions required for the validity of the election were fulfilled, this being according to the Faith a sign and effect of the same.

By the way, not to you but to others who are still inclined to dispute this principle (which Cardinal Billot calls the most important of all in discussing the possibility of a Pope heretic), I say, even the canonists Wernz and Vidal whom you cited elsewhere expressly teach this, that universal acceptance is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election.

Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.

Is this for me?

Quote from: Nishant

Since I know you accept this teaching in principle, we can move on. The burden of proof is on you to show that,

1. Despite the clear statement of Pope Benedict XIV that the solemn act of praying una cuм the Pope is indeed "an affirmative indication that recognizes him as the head of the Church, vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter", that somehow this is not an act of recognition sufficient for the condition to apply, and moreover that,

2. Despite all appearances to the contrary, all bishops who are candidates remaining who have a mission (even supplied, for the sake of the argument) from a Pope, who still possess ordinary jurisdiction, somehow do not recognize Pope Francis in this sufficient way.

Remember, there are about 5000 bishops that pray in communion with the Pope, you have said in the past and on this thread, you think some bishops in communion with Pope Francis still have not lost the Faith. Let's say of these only 1%, that is 50, have not lost the Faith and are relevant.

Even with all these assumptions as you like, the thesis that there is some underground bishop somewhere no one knows of, which is ad-hoc and arbitrary, even if it were true, would not in any way suffice to undercut moral unanimity. Secondly, such a bishop would necessarily be even excluded from consideration, according to Fr. Hunter's teaching above, who is talking of bishops whom the faithful can see and discern as either recognizing the Pope or not.

Therefore, moral unanimity exists.

But you yourself grant that, if the fact of universal recognition is verified in the concrete, then we know with infallible certainty that all conditions required for the validity of the election were fulfilled, this being according to the Faith a sign and effect of the same.

By the way, not to you but to others who are still inclined to dispute this principle (which Cardinal Billot calls the most important of all in discussing the possibility of a Pope heretic), I say, even the canonists Wernz and Vidal whom you cited elsewhere expressly teach this, that universal acceptance is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election.

Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.

Is this for me?

I'm assuming it is.

1) You are using Ex Quo to effectively disregard the very purpose of the teaching of Universal acceptance, which is ironic for obvious reasons.  The infallible sign that a putative pope is actually the pope because the hierarchy and the universal Church regard him as such is rooted in the indefectability of the Church.  Because the pope is the proximate rule of faith (and we learn the faith from him) a situation could not arise where the universal Church learned the faith from a false pope, in particularly from a heretic.  

The una cuм is a verbal recognition-- there is no practical recognition.  You aren't learning the faith from these men, nor are any traditional Catholics, nor are Novus Ordo Catholics, and the Novus Ordo bishops take and leave what they want.  If we learned the faith from the conciliar popes, we would lose the faith.  Nor are you abiding by their laws.  

2) With the above in mind, a reply to your second point isn't really necessary because your idea of what it means to recognize and/or adhere to the pope undermines the very purpose of this doctrine in the first place.  The onus is really on you to first prove (which you would not be able to) that a universal peaceful acceptance is measured without regard to the actual PRACTICE of faithful Catholics.