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.

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.

Quote from: Van Noort

“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.

Quote from: Fr. Sylvester Hunter

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.

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).

Do you realize you are a stinking liar?

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

The "elections" of these vatican 2 antipopes wasn't accepted universally anyways; right from the get-go it is clear that neither Roncalli nor Montini nor Wojtyla WERE ELECTED POPE TO BEGIN WITH.

Quote from: Pelele

Do you realize you are a stinking liar?

Maybe Nishant did not know about the quotes you had posted or maybe he forgot about them. You should think that before you call him a "stinking liar."

So at this stage in the game, Nishant, someone who likes to think he knows enough about theology to go around condemning sedevacantism, might actually be ignorant of something as basic as cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Not to mention the fact that he's been a traditionalist for years.

Hmm.

I don't think so.

And even if that were the case, he would still be guilty of crass and/or effective ignorance and of not studying nor researching his opponent's arguments before presuming to "refute" anything.

And in all seriousness if the case is that he really has never read cuм Ex, this just shows you the deplorable ignorance and blindness sspx people like him find themselves in.

But i admit i went over the top and i apologize for the bad things i said.

I have already mentioned to you before the case of Anacletus II who reigned in Rome and had the majority of approval of the Roman Curia. If it was not with the exception of St. Bernard and a few others who were mostly outside of Rome, who recognized Innocent II as the true Pope. However, for whatever reason a good overwhelming majority of the clergy in Rome accepted him as the true Pope as opposed to Innocent II.

So no its not a "dogmatic fact" that recognition from the clergy constitutes ipso facto a true Pope. I used to believe that this was true, but historically this completely fails... I agree the case of Pius XII is solid, because not only does he have unanimous consent, but he happens to be a Catholic! Hey, how about that! He has to be a Catholic in order to be considered a Pontiff don't forget that. Its one of the pre-requisites it goes without almost saying. Its pretty simple you have to be a male, meet the proper canonical age, be made a Bishop during a set period of time (it varied throughout the centuries), and lastly be a Catholic. You have to be Catholic in order to be the head of the Church, no one ever has disputed this point EVER. Not once has this ever been brought up, according to the UNANIMOUS magisterial authority and when I mean unanimous I mean TOTAL unanimity of both Father's and theologians. Not one of them including Cajetan argued that a non-Catholic could be Pope. Benedict at the very least pretended to be Catholic, so I can give the benefit of the doubt as to why he lulled many into his traditionalist cover, but this man is not even remotely a Christian for that matter.

Sorry for not answering some of the other postings, I will get to them. I have been extremely busy and as a result I have not been able to address some of the issues that you have raised. Please know that I will get to them whenever it is humanly possible, thanks. I am not dodging any of the questions, it is just that I need to address them more in depth. I am even thinking of doing a video series I guess it just depends when I have time.

Can you answer me one question, if a Jєω who is a believing Jєω gets elected would he be able to be Pope? Yes or no? Justify your answer whichever one you pick, or answer in a more specific way if you think the yes or no format does not formulate your position properly. Just letting you know that there is such a thing as a Marrano, and some of them have continued their practice for centuries... JP II is definitely one such case where it can be certain that he was of Jєωιѕн ancestry without a shadow of a doubt, he clearly manifested the Old covenant was still valid. This is perfectly in sync with the theology of the Conciliarist magisterium. You can apply this question to not just being a Jєω, but to a non-Christian or a Protestant. Ultimately the real debate comes down to whether they are still Catholic or not... If they are then we owe them are full allegiance no questions asked, so long as they don't command you to go to war with some country, or go prostitute yourself then you can be safe in the bark of St. Peter. He cannot be the head of two Church's it violates the unity of the Church. For we have only ONE HEAD, and the Pope is the principal source of Unity among Catholics, this is a dogmatic fact. You can take that to the bank and cash it out.

It is foolish to think that heretics will expose themselves so overtly initially, this is why it took 50 years of destruction before they do it in your face overt heresy. You have the most powerful position in the world, and you will not carry out an agenda which has been a cosmic struggle between God and the Devil. Even Novus Ordo conservatives are so troubled that they are seriously questioning without ever having read any SV'ist arguments that the man is Catholic or even Christian for that matter. It is simply common sense, and you have to be a "theologian" in order to see otherwise. Saint Thomas Aquinas was the Doctor of Common sense for a reason, and on almost EVERY case he cited with the masses on what is clearly self-evident. Why is it so hard to believe that there can be such a thing as an interregnum + anti popes... I never discounted the possibility even as a sedeplenist, it just seems like you are just anti-sedevacantist a-priori. Seriously could you theoretically tell me what is it that they would need to do for you to be "convinced" they are anti-Popes. I just can't see what is it that they need to say and do, that spells it out better then H E R E T I C A L- A N T I - P O P E S in both deed/acts/official docuмents.  

What is worse is that all of this has been predicted both in private revelation and public revelation...

Here is a beautiful post in BF:

Enough of private revelation. We're living Apocalypse 12. Look at Fr. Herman Kramer's commentary on it in his The Book of Destiny (1955) pp. 275 ff. Fr. Kramer spent 30 years working on this exegesis, completing it in 1955, a mere 6 years before Vatican II. I only present his probable conclusions, but if you want to see his logical reasons, backed up by Church Fathers, read his entire commentary on Chapter 12.

v. 1: "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:"
Fr. Kramer, pp. 276-7 wrote:
The woman of chapter twelve is not the Blessed Virgin Mary.
…
According to the ancient Fathers, the human nature or character of the Church is here delineated, while in chapters four and five her divine nature and prerogatives were depicted.
…
The twelve stars represent the twelve apostles; or they may be God’s mystical number symbolizing the Christian nations, that as a contrast to the ten crowned horns of the beast, shall be the glory of the Church when the days of Antichrist approach.
…
The moon under her feet has ever been understood to symbolize the unchanging and unchangeable character of the Church.


v. 2: "And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered."
Fr. Kramer, p. 278 wrote:
In that travail, she gives birth to some definite “per­son” who is to RULE the Church with a rod of iron (verse 5). It then points to a conflict waged within the Church to elect one who was to “rule all nations” in the manner clearly stated. In accord with the text this is unmistakably a PAPAL ELECTION, for only Christ and His Vicar have the divine right to rule ALL NATIONS. Furthermore, the Church does not travail in anguish at EVERY papal election which can be held without trouble or danger. But at this time the great powers may take a menacing attitude to hinder the election of the logical and expected candidate by threats of a general apostasy, assassination or imprisonment of this candidate if elected. This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church and would cause intense anguish to the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.


v. 3: "And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:"
Fr. Kramer, pg. 279 wrote:
This red dragon it is that brings the Church into great distress at that time.
…
No fiercer enemy of God and man has appeared in Christian times than Communism, and strange to say, RED is its emblematic color. Communism may by that time have gained control of the governments of Europe, It would then erect almost insurmountable difficulties for the holding of a conclave to elect a pope.
…
Satan knows how exten­sively an interregnum in the papacy would favor his success in recovering his ancient lordship over the world. (See 2 Thess II. 7 ["For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way."]).
Card. Manning's 1862 argument for why the Antichrist will be within the Catholic Church is simple:
Card. Manning wrote:
We have here [2 Thessalonians 2:3-11] a prophecy … of a [spiritual*] revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord … The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth, prophesied by Daniel [cf. Daniel 2] as the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up … in other words, the one and universal Church, founded by our Divine Lord, and spread by His Apostles throughout the world. In this one only kingdom was deposited the true and supernatural pure theism, or knowledge of God, and the true and only faith of God incarnate, with the doctrines and laws of grace. This, then, is the authority from which the revolt is to be made, be that revolt what it may.
[*"St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared." Thus, the revolt is spiritual, not temporal.]
{Lect. 1 of Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ's 2nd part (4 lectures), "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ", pp. 81-173}

v. 4: "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son."
Fr. Kramer, p. 284 wrote:
Some eminent cardinal may be particularly outstanding in his efforts to stem the tide of demoralization of bishops and priests. Satan will know, and the world-powers will know, that he is the likely choice for the papacy, and that if elected, he will convoke a general council and exercise his supreme jurisdiction to inaugurate measures of reform. Satan knows that his own hopes of a rich harvest of souls will then be dashed to the ground. Hence he must avert the election or have the pope αssαssιnαtҽd when elected. The judgment is about to begin “at the house of God” (1 Peter IV. 17). The influence of the dragon will every­ where aim to subject the Church to the state. This persecution is thus a political subjugation, and one third of the bishops and priests will be ripe for apostasy. Satan’s intention is to subject the newly-elected pope also to the purposes of the World-powers or to plot his death. He may contrive an assurance of safety and immunity from harm for the cardinals to convene for the election the more easily to take the pope-elect prisoner. The dragon will want to intimidate the new pope into non-interference—to let affairs run and develop as heretofore. In that way would he “devour the son”, absorb the papacy and alone direct and rule the world.
"Subject[ing] the Church to the state" is exactly what Dignatitis Humanæ and Vatican II ecuмenism did, too.

v. 5: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne."
Fr. Kramer, p. 285-6 wrote:
A general council may decree the reforms, but the pope must enforce them. These decrees will be the “seven thunders” mentioned in chapter ten.
…
The clause, “that he might devour her son”, does not necessarily mean assassination. The dragon is a symbolic form of the evil world-powers, who will resent the existence of a spiritual empire among them and through them and independent of them in its essential functions and will attempt to subject this empire to their will and service. They will try to make the Church a “state church” everywhere. This is possible only if they can subject the pope to their wills and compel him to teach and rule as they direct. That would be literally devouring the papacy. Since they are defeated in this, they have the pope αssαssιnαtҽd and “he is taken up to God and to His throne”, just as Christ by His death “was taken away from distress” (Is. LIII. 8).
…
this “son” will hardly have time to purify the Church, before he is persecuted, imprisoned and martyred. He is therefore surely not Christ.
…
This pope will be given the power to rule over the destiny of the Church immediately from Heaven. He carries out the will of God and loses his life in consequence; and immediately as part of his reward, he receives in Heaven patronage over the Church on earth.
Could this "man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod" be Card. Siri? If so, it's comforting that "he receives in Heaven patronage over the Church on earth."

The following verses show the triumph of St. Michael, a newly elected Pope, and cardinals who uphold and enforce the "Seven Thunders" of the orthodox council.

Keep reading. It's fascinating. And it's public revelation.

Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election

Now who can claim that the SSPX is united to their head or any faithful traditionalist for that matter. Other then the cardboard picture there is no unity with their head, you have one religion he has another. Dogmatic fact.

Bergoglio is not united to the Church big difference...

What if the "whole Church" has lost the Faith? After all, "The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian."

Yes what St. Athanasius is talking about is the fact of appearances of numbers falling like lemmings to the doctrines of the anti-Christ. Before I used to have a positive doubt about the Conciliarist, but every single time I would read the actual docuмents (joint declarations, ecuмenical directories, official approved new canon law, disciplinary approved measures etc...), I would be so perplexed each time finding it more and more difficult to make the men minimally barely Catholic, sufficient for me to say that they have the office which I claim they have. The main thing is that despite any real proven cօռspιʀαcιҽs that their is evidence for the SV'ist thesis stands on its own without any help except by going with the official Conciliar magisterium. I am not talking about "abuses" or "misinterpretations" here, for a long time many conservatives have known how bad the Jesuits are and now they have to endure one of the worst possible Jesuits. One from Latin America which it is impossible for Father Arrupe (the black Pope at that time) not to have named Provincial of Argentina (at that time Bergoglio) if he did not have Liberation theology leanings... To put it nicely... We are talking here during a time in Latin America that a good number of Jesuits were actually fighting as guerillas. How worse can it get!?

I repeat once again it took the Jesuits to destroy the strong foundations of the Church, and now it takes a Jesuit to finish the job  :rahrah:.