This is in response to the confused claims about Pope Pius XII made on the other threads.
It is a standard and well established principle in theology, which more recent dogmatic forms of sedevacantism have outright denied, tried to throw in doubt, or are genuinely ignorant of, that a Pope who is accepted by the whole Church, in particular by the hierarchy, is certainly and indubitably Pope.
(A dogmatic fact is a theological grade of certitude for a fact known with infallible certainty that follows from two premises, one of which is revealed, the other of which is verified by reason).
Van Noort discusses this with regard to Pope Pius XII below.
“So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”
Fr. Hunter elaborates on the same.
Dogmatic Facts.— But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallible certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts ...
First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not he exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.
... it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
Obviously the teaching of Van Noort and any other sound theologian would not undermine Divine Law which teaches a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and quite assuredly they would be the first to agree.
For instance if the whole Church accepted the following as Pope,
1. A lady
2. A male under the age of reason
3. A male that was insane
4. A public heretic
5. A public schismatic
6. A public apostate
7. A member of the irrational animal kingdom
That would not in fact make such a creature Pope.
All agree that only a male above the age of reason can be validly elected. And if he is not a valid Bishop it would then be incuмbent on the "Bishop" of Rome" to in fact be a bishop and be validly consecrated as such. Someone like Francis, if he were not the public apostate heretic that he is would have to be ordained and then be consecrated in order to function as BISHOP of Rome. In our current situation the best Francis could do, since he is not a Catholic right now, is become a Catholic lay-person.
For him to be accepted by the whole Church after that he would have to go through traditional seminary training and get ordained. He then would have to prove himself long enough to become a Catholic Bishop. Then prove himself even longer to be made a Cardinal, by a valid Pope who would come into existence between now and then. Then he would have to be legitimately elected. He is 77 now. After 12 years of authentic Catholic seminary he could be ordained at the age of 89. It would take him 10 years to prove worthy of the bishopric and another 10 to be considered worthy of being named Cardinal. By this time he
would be about 109.
Or after becoming a Catholic lay-man he could shut himself up in an authentic Catholic Monastery and do penance for the rest of his life and give himself a chance at salvation. Perhaps the later would be the better idea.
But its good to know everyone thought Pius XII was Pope and that everyone being aware of this fact adds weight to the validity of his pontificate. What if one disagreed? Would that unpope him? It is important to understand what Van Noort is saying and what he is not saying. If all accept him he is Pope. But what if all did not accept him? But more importantly, regardless of whether he was accepted by all or not he was not a public schismatic, heretic or apostate as the conciliar leaders have been and are.
If Van Noort is correct then
1. The whole church has not accepted the conciliar Vatican leaders as Pope, which I believe is correct (this includes bishops and members of the whole universal Church.
2. Van Noort has taught correctly but has not be properly understood. (Did Van Noort really teach that if a free-mason was invalidly elected but recognized, at least publicly by the bishops and the whole universal Church that he would still be a valid Pope despite his being invalidly elected and being a freemason?) Do those who know better but remain silent count against this? If so how do we figure out that the whole universal Church including the Bishops have not accepted when no one makes the claim of not accepting him? His teaching would seem meaningless if as far as everyone could tell all the bishops and the whole universal Church accepted him since those who have not recognized him have not spoken or were not taken seriously if they did speak. It seems like a rather subjective way to figure out if we have a real Pope or not. Did everyone accept him? Okay he was Pope. Does not matter if he was a public heretic or destroyed the Church or not. It does not matter if he was the anti-Christ or not? If everyone, as far as we know, recognized him he was surely Pope. Not sure if that is what Van Noort was teaching.
3. Van Noort has taught incorrectly.
Obviously the teaching of Van Noort and any other sound theologian would not undermine Divine Law which teaches a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and quite assuredly they would be the first to agree.