An email received says that someone named Lazlo Sjiarto published a similar theory in the Angelus "several decades ago."
I am not familiar with this name, and nothing comes up in an internet search of his name or Angelus (i.e., pre-internet).
If anyone can provide any information (or ideally, the article referred to), it would be much appreciated.
The Angelus edited it, inserted many/most of the translations from Latin, and even SPELLED MY NAME WRONG. It's Laszlo, not Lazlo. I didn't even PUT MY NAME on this thing. They never once contacted me before publishing it. I founded out only after a different friend came up to me and "congratulated" me for the article. I asked, "Huh? What article?" At no point did they contact me or get my permission to publish (and edit) it, and they KNEW where I was living at the time.That's sad. He could've sued their socks off.
An email received says that someone named Lazlo Sjiarto published a similar theory in the Angelus "several decades ago."He is near.
I am not familiar with this name, and nothing comes up in an internet search of his name or Angelus (i.e., pre-internet).
If anyone can provide any information (or ideally, the article referred to), it would be much appreciated.
He is near.
… I desire the widest and most intense possible scrutiny of this thesis …Thank you for starting this thread, Sean. I had not looked at the "Prominent theologians" thread from which you excerpted RomanTheo's thesis, but having been impressed by his thoroughgoing correction of X in the "New rite" thread—a correction that X's stubbornness prevents him from accepting—I am happy to read more of his comments.
Part of me thinks it is better to have a Francis in Rome, than a Pope Burke or Pope Mueller, who would emanate a false "traditionalism" (by comparison). Francis's blatant and overt heretical pontificate threatens to burn down the conciliar house, so they want him out. But a Burke or Mueller could do lots more damage over the long haul by pretending to reject error even as he promotes it much more stealthily.Just so. Indeed, I think you will agree that we have already witnessed this phenomenon. It was for the very reason you outline that Benedict XVI's faux sympathy did Tradition much more harm than John Paul II's open antagonism did. No one should forget that the smells-and-bells mob at Rorate Caeli and St. Hugh of Cluny was so agog over Benedict that I wouldn't be surprised if they had bobblehead dolls of him on the dashboard. Also, from the first reading, I saw Summorum pontificuм as a major step backward from Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984. SP was confected of cheap talk and sloppy sentiment, and the separate instruction to the bishops effectively undercut everything that the motu dangled before its hungry-to-believe audience. I remain puzzled that so few Trads, hard and soft alike, seem to agree.
Pope Benedict was akin to President Bush Jr, who did more to tear down our privacy laws and make the US into a police state than any president since the fake catholic Lincoln during the cινιℓ ωαr. People hail both Benedict and Bush as “conservatives”.Why are the Confederates seen as the good guys here? Over 90% of Jєωs were slave owners, and almost half of all slave owners were Jєωs despite Jєωs being less than 1% of the population. Only the tiniest fraction of 1% of whites owned slaves. Slavery protected Jєωιѕн profits, and slavery was banned by the Church. Why anyone would want to preserve such an institution is beyond me.
Pope Francis is akin to Ob@ma. Agenda in plain site.
So what's really gnawing at you?I might ask you the same question, Sean, but as you're determined to pick a fight where none was sought, I shan't bother. Instead, I simply repeat what I said before: thank you for calling attention to this comment of RomanTheo.
I might ask you the same question, Sean, but as you're determined to pick a fight where none was sought, I shan't bother. Instead, I simply repeat what I said before: thank you for calling attention to this comment of RomanTheo.
Indeed, it was this encounter with a friend of mine who felt that Pius IX was not a legitimate pope that providentially led me back from dogmatic sedevacantism.Maybe I'm just dumb but I'm still confused.
I had to discern what principle would make it wrong for this man to reject Pius IX but OK for him to reject Paul VI. I came to the conclusion, very prayerfully and with a lot of pain (due to my dogmatic adherence to sedevacantism ... to the point of extreme bitter zeal), that you simply couldn't allow individual armchair theologian to reject any given pope according to his private judgment. So then who COULD decide? My mentor in sedevacantism criticized R&R for Magisterium-sifting, but then I ran into this gentleman who was "sifting" Popes. So what's the difference?, I asked myself.
You can see how this "article" starts degenerating after a couple paragraphs. Initially, after a few paragraphs I had ONLY the Latin in there because I had just made one pass through this thing. And from that point of the docuмent, I was more jotting down thoughts rather than attempting to write a coherent piece. So the Angelus editors translated most of the Latin, and made a few mistakes. Father Cekada later excoriated me for those "bad translations" as well as for "peppering" the thing with Latin quotes to make myself sound erudite.
I guess I just don't see a difference between the level of arbitrary between "You can reject Paul VI, but you can't reject Pius IX" and "You can doubt Paul VI but can't doubt Pius IX."
As I've explained before, it's because there is no universal peaceful acceptance of the Vatican II prelates. Not a single living sane Catholic soul doubted the legitimacy of Pius IX or Pius XII; that's what is known as Universal Peaceful Acceptance. It is Universal Peaceful Acceptance which establishes dogmatic fact.1: Why on the same reasoning could you not be a "dogmatic" Sedevacantist? Would it be because there isn't a universal peaceful *rejection* of these same prelates?
Did anyone doubt that John XXIII was pope during his lifetime?
What about Paul VI?
Why on the same reasoning could you not be a "dogmatic" Sedevacantist?
I would dispute the assertion that the existence of 40,000 (at best) sedes/doubters suffices to call into question universal peaceful acceptance in a Church of 1.3 billion.
That’s like 0.000003% of membership not peacefully accepting, which would not suffice to upset moral unanimity.
If you would say, “Yeah, but those are all conciliarists,” then I would respond that, so long as they are members of the Church (and most theologians would opine material heretics are not severed from membership), then the fact that they are conciliarists is not relevant.
OK so I'm following most of this so far. My main question/inconsistency I'm seeing here is, how then is it not heretical to deny or doubt the legitimacy of John XXIII? I have no particular strong interest/investment in pushing that conclusion, but it seems like your internal logic would lead to a necessity of accepting John XXIII, and a belief that its heretical to doubt or deny it. That many people doubted his pontificate after he was already dead seems irrelevant, per your reasoning. Thoughts?
John XXIII is disputed even among sedevacantists. It's not even particularly relevant, since John XXIII taught no error to the Universal Church.He also suppressed the cult of St Philomena. Pope St Pius X had already condemned those who would cast doubt on her existence and/or sanctity. He could do that because she had already been canonized and it is the common teaching of theologians that canonizations are infallible. So casting doubt on her existence or sanctity is tantamount to saying that the Church can err in its solemn declarations. Furthermore, many thousands of Catholics openly resisted J23 in this suppression as well as the suppression of the cult of St Christopher. Seems like the R&R started before +Lefebvre.
There were, however, those close to the 1958 conclave who have alleged the his election was illegitimate.
Universal Acceptance isn't about math. Of those who hold the Traditional faith, the vast majority have some doubt and do not accept their legitimacy with the requisite certainty of faith.
Have you seen the polls taken by the Novus Ordo? At least 95% ... by their own numbers ... are heretics who no longer have the faith. That's absolutely relevant. Now Francis Bergoglio has gone so far as to elicit accusations of heresy from even within the Novus Ordo.
Universal acceptance isn't about math?He could argue moral unanimity, though I don't know what exactly that would entail. Though on the flip side, I doubt anyone could even prove that even one person said Pius IX was an antipope during his lifetime.
Then to remain logical, you must concur that so long as 1 person objected to the legitimacy of the papal claimant (say, Pius IX in 1864), universal acceptance would be lacking, and said papacy would not be a dogmatic fact.
Since I know you would not concur with such an absurd conclusion (which you disputed in your article) -but which is nevertheless justified by your logic- it should indicate you are not correct.
As regards the poor quality of faith held by 1.25 billion of the 1.3 billion Catholics in the world who accept Francis as pope, I have already pre-empted recourse to that argument by noting that however faulty their doctrine may be, unless they have become public heretics, covert material heretics (most probably) retain membership in the Church, and consequently, they remain Catholics who peaceably accept Francis as pope.
Consequently, the conclusion must remain that Francis' papacy is a dogmatic fact (and therefore assenting to that fact is obligatory).
The proportion of those who question the legitimacy of Francis's pontificate is so miniscule and negligable as to be virtually unknown.
It is like pouring an eye dropper into the ocean, or dropping a grain of sand in the Sahara Dessert.
Conversely, if you look at those historical examples (like the GWS), where dogmatic fact was not established precisely because huge percentages (e.g., 30-60% of the Church, including the divided hierarchy) were in disagreement over the legitimacy of the papal claimants, there is really no proportionate comparison to today's situation.
The difference between 0.000029% and 30-60% is the difference between peaceful acceptance/dogmatic fact and its opposite.
I would dispute the assertion that the existence of 40,000 (at best) sedes/doubters suffices to call into question universal peaceful acceptance in a Church of 1.3 billion.I think multiple Archbishops openly doubting your Pontificate and calling you the founder of a false religion in Rome is enough to disrupt Universal Peaceful Acceptance. The stature of the men is more important than the numbers.
That’s like 0.000003% of membership not peacefully accepting, which would not suffice to upset moral unanimity.
If you would say, “Yeah, but those are all conciliarists,” then I would respond that, so long as they are members of the Church (and most theologians would opine material heretics are not severed from membership), then the fact that they are conciliarists is not relevant.
I think multiple Archbishops openly doubting your Pontificate and calling you the founder of a false religion in Rome is enough to disrupt Universal Peaceful Acceptance. The stature of the men is more important than the numbers.
He could argue moral unanimity, though I don't know what exactly that would entail. Though on the flip side, I doubt anyone could even prove that even one person said Pius IX was an antipope during his lifetime.
Here's my big question mark though.
Say 95% of Novus Ordos really do deny at least one dogma of the faith, while knowing its a dogma. Say that makes them automatically not Catholic.
OK, are all the Trad Catholics in the world still more knowledgeable than 5% of the Novus Ordo? TBH I don't know for sure. But I have serious doubts about that. There are a billion people in the world claiming to be Catholic. 5% of that is still 50 million. Whereas I think there are like 1 million or so Catholics going to SSPX chapels, and probably even less going to Resistance and Sedevacantist chapels. I'm willing to admit to having some non zero amount of doubt about the recent popes myself, though I certainly think it would need to be the Church, and not me, to declare them invalid. But I have about a dozen friends who went to the same tiny liberal arts school that I did, who converted, who all believe every single dogma of the Church, yet I don't think even ask the question of whether these guys are popes, or ever have. Sedevacantism is unthinkable to them, yet dogmatically they're completely Catholic.
If you (X) are right that all of these people count as Catholic, I realize that increases the moral unanimity even more. But even if Ladislaus is right, I still question whether that's enough to attain the desired result.
Moral unanimity is MY argument.He didn't say it wasn't your argument. He was agreeing with you and saying that even if Ladislaus is right that 95% of NOers are heretics to the point where they're no longer Catholic, that 5% of NOers still dwarf Trads to the point that those 5% accepting the pope would still count as moral unanimity.
0.000028% rejection = 0% rejection = peaceful acceptance.
He didn't say it wasn't your argument. He was agreeing with you and saying that even if Ladislaus is right that 95% of NOers are heretics to the point where they're no longer Catholic, that 5% of NOers still dwarf Trads to the point that those 5% accepting the pope would still count as moral unanimity.
Personally I think the importance and high standing of figures like Lefebvre and Thuc is enough to break moral unanimity, since I think the status/rank of those who doubt the pope is more important than pure numbers, but I can see ByzCat's point.
Ah, thank you. I misread his post.You're right, you have me beat there.
As regards the issue of moral unanimity/peaceable acceptance, you seem to be advocating a "quality over quantity" conception.
But that notion would stand the very notion of peaceable acceptance on its head:
99.9992% of the Church could reject the legitimacy of a papal claimant, but a single bishop of high stature could recognize him, and thereby satisfy "peacable acceptance" even amidst a universal rejection.
This illustrates that "peaceable acceptance" is indeed considered from a quantitative (not qualitative) vantage.
You're right, you have me beat there.It’s easy to understand what happened if you can rid yourself of the idea that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Instead you can think of the promulgation of Lumen Gentium as the foundation of a new non-Catholic Church. If many Catholics were tricked into going along with this new non-Catholic church, it doesn’t mean that therefore it is the Catholic Church. Any acts of the hierarchy of the Conciliar Church don’t constitute official acts of the Catholic Church. So there is no peaceful acceptance by the clergy of the Catholic Church.
There is still the issue however that a clear majority of its hierarchy and followers haven fallen to heresy and teach, as Bishop Williamson calls it, "a false religion". As more and more of the hierarchy embrace and teach greater and greater error, and use doubtful Sacraments, at what point does it stop being the moral unanimity of the Church? If the hierarchy who elects and recognises you abandons the Church, then when does it stop being the Church and start being the "false religion" that recognises you?
"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." [Matthew 24:24 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=24&l=24#x)] |
He didn't say it wasn't your argument. He was agreeing with you and saying that even if Ladislaus is right that 95% of NOers are heretics to the point where they're no longer Catholic, that 5% of NOers still dwarf Trads to the point that those 5% accepting the pope would still count as moral unanimity.Well I'm less arguing a particular point, and more working with the logic I'm being given, and trying to figure out where it leads. It seems like this argument differs a bit from the one Ladislaus made, but I might be wrong and I might misunderstand why. The tricky thing is that, while I see the usefulness of "Traditional Catholic" as a generic descriptor to communicate roughly where one stands on certain issues, I don't see how its a particularly meaningful term in the strictest sense of the word. ie. I don't see how we can come up with some arbitrary definition of "Traditional Catholic", say that most people who meet that definition doubt the legitimacy of Francis and other recent pontificates, and therefore conclude that "the faithful haven't accepted it." Particularly when its very possible one is defining "Traditional Catholic" in a manner that necessarily presupposes such doubt anyway.
Personally I think the importance and high standing of figures like Lefebvre and Thuc is enough to break moral unanimity, since I think the status/rank of those who doubt the pope is more important than pure numbers, but I can see ByzCat's point.
Universal Acceptance isn't about math. Of those who hold the Traditional faith, the vast majority have some doubt and do not accept their legitimacy with the requisite certainty of faith.I guess I just don't see how "Traditional Catholic" is a particularly meaningful category when it comes to a matter like this. I don't think its invalid as a quick two word descriptor to give a rough estimate on where someone stands on the controversial issues of the day. But as long as a Novus Ordo Catholic is completely in line with all dogmas of the Church with which he is aware, and has the correct motive of faith (ie. he will believe whatever the Church teaches, even if he's wrong on what the Church teaches on this or that issue), I don't see why his having zero doubt about the pontificate could be irrelevant just because he isn't a "trad", which seems more like a social term than an ecclesiastically relevant one.
Have you seen the polls taken by the Novus Ordo? At least 95% ... by their own numbers ... are heretics who no longer have the faith. That's absolutely relevant. Now Francis Bergoglio has gone so far as to elicit accusations of heresy from even within the Novus Ordo.
Universal acceptance isn't about math?
Then to remain logical, you must concur that so long as 1 person objected to the legitimacy of the papal claimant (say, Pius IX in 1864), universal acceptance would be lacking, and said papacy would not be a dogmatic fact.
Your example is an illustration precisely of why it isn't about math. Universal means 100%. So if one person objects, it's no longer Universal. If you're looking at it as math. So is there a precise number that suffices for Universality? 85%, 90%, 93.652%? That's why it can't be about math. So I'll get back to this. It's similar to why sedevacantism can't be about math either, the number of years the See has been vacant. It's impossible to quantify in terms of MATH how many years is too many, so there has to be some other principle involved. So what is it when it comes to Universality? Let's explore that a little. I'll get back to this when I have time.Is it really true that not even one person doubted Pius IX? I mean are we confident there wasn’t even one?
Is it really true that not even one person doubted Pius IX? I mean are we confident there wasn’t even one?
I usually assume there’s at least one person who believes any given ridiculous thing.
That said I do wanna hear your further thoughts on this
Is it really true that not even one person doubted Pius IX? I mean are we confident there wasn’t even one?It isn't about math, nor is it about the theory of the universality of acceptance. It's about the sedes challenge to the law due to their unwillingness to accept the law, established by the pope, to let the world know that the newly elected pope is indeed the pope.
I usually assume there’s at least one person who believes any given ridiculous thing.
That said I do wanna hear your further thoughts on this
Oh, I imagine that you had one crackpot or another who's doubted the existence of any given Pope. I'm sure that a number of Old Catholics thought that about Pius IX. Again, that's why Universality isn't strict math, aka, absolutely 100%. First of all, the opinions of the Old Catholics are irrelevant because they're not Catholic. And any given crackpot can be dismissed as not compromising Universality.There's a bit of faulty logic here. You're saying Old Catholics are irrelevant because they're not Catholic, but that's effectively saying they're wrong because they're wrong. They're not Catholic because they rejected V1 and Pope Pius IX, and Pope Pius IX had universal approval because the Old Catholics who rejected him are not Catholic. While I agree that they're schismatic heretics, that's circular reasoning right there. Universal Peaceful Acceptance is meaningless if anyone who doesn't accept is automatically outside of the Church for doing so - that means there there can never NOT be Universal Peaceful Acceptance.
So, then, what kind of threshold has to be reached (other than simple math) before Universality is compromised. If it's mathematical, then one has to come up with an exact number? 3%, 5%, 10%, 13.259%. This is why it's not about math.
This is where Traditional Catholicism is crucial. If in fact the Novus Ordo has gone off the rails in terms of their sensus Catholicus, and Traditional Catholics do in fact represent the most genuine expression of the true Catholic sensus fide and are therefore the best representatives of the Ecclesia Credens, then it's absolutely significant that a vast majority of Traditional Catholics do NOT hold the V2 papal claimants to be dogmatically certain, and entertain some degree of doubt about their legitimacy. By their own polls, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo members are HERETICS who do not hold the Catholic faith, pertinaciously doubting one Catholic dogma or another. So how is the Conciliar institution more representative of the Ecclesia Credens than Traditional Catholics? Answer: they're not. It's no more significant than if the Arians (who according to some estimates outnumbered orthodox Catholics at least 4 to 1) had managed to get an Arian pope installed and gave him their recognition.
So, to me, the fact that the vast majority of Traditional Catholics have doubts about their legitimacy/orthodoxy rises to the level or threshold of compromising Universal Acceptance.
It isn't about math, nor is it about the theory of the universality of acceptance. It's about the sedes challenge to the law due to their unwillingness to accept the law, established by the pope, to let the world know that the newly elected pope is indeed the pope.It'd do you well to read the full quote you pasted, instead of just the first sentence. It refers to claims that the acts of a pope before his coronation are not valid, and that a pope only becomes pope upon coronation. The above quote rejects that viewpoint and affirms that the pope is pope from the moment of election. It does not mean that an election having taken place is proof that the man is the real pope, because there are such things as illegal elections and Canon Law mentions many impediments that could make a legitimate election invalid.
I forget which cardinal it was who said it, but he said something along the lines of: "The infallible sign that the pope is the pope, is the universal, peaceful acceptance of him as pope" - or words to that effect. Never mind what the popes themselves have said - it's what the cardinal said that matters to the sedes.
"After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto." - Pope St. Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
Your example is an illustration precisely of why it isn't about math. Universal means 100%. So if one person objects, it's no longer Universal. If you're looking at it as math. So is there a precise number that suffices for Universality? 85%, 90%, 93.652%? That's why it can't be about math. So I'll get back to this. It's similar to why sedevacantism can't be about math either, the number of years the See has been vacant. It's impossible to quantify in terms of MATH how many years is too many, so there has to be some other principle involved. So what is it when it comes to Universality? Let's explore that a little. I'll get back to this when I have time.
Oh, I imagine that you had one crackpot or another who's doubted the existence of any given Pope. I'm sure that a number of Old Catholics thought that about Pius IX. Again, that's why Universality isn't strict math, aka, absolutely 100%. First of all, the opinions of the Old Catholics are irrelevant because they're not Catholic. And any given crackpot can be dismissed as not compromising Universality.
So, then, what kind of threshold has to be reached (other than simple math) before Universality is compromised. If it's mathematical, then one has to come up with an exact number? 3%, 5%, 10%, 13.259%. This is why it's not about math.
This is where Traditional Catholicism is crucial. If in fact the Novus Ordo has gone off the rails in terms of their sensus Catholicus, and Traditional Catholics do in fact represent the most genuine expression of the true Catholic sensus fide and are therefore the best representatives of the Ecclesia Credens, then it's absolutely significant that a vast majority of Traditional Catholics do NOT hold the V2 papal claimants to be dogmatically certain, and entertain some degree of doubt about their legitimacy. By their own polls, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo members are HERETICS who do not hold the Catholic faith, pertinaciously doubting one Catholic dogma or another. So how is the Conciliar institution more representative of the Ecclesia Credens than Traditional Catholics? Answer: they're not. It's no more significant than if the Arians (who according to some estimates outnumbered orthodox Catholics at least 4 to 1) had managed to get an Arian pope installed and gave him their recognition.
So, to me, the fact that the vast majority of Traditional Catholics have doubts about their legitimacy/orthodoxy rises to the level or threshold of compromising Universal Acceptance.Report to moderator (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-secundum-quidquoad-nos'-thesis/48/?action=reporttm;msg=653189) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/ip.gif) Logged (https://www.cathinfo.com/helpadmin/?help=see_member_ip)
Except "Traditional" is a social category, not one that has any kind of dogmatic meaning. And let's say 5% of the Novus Ordo holds to the Catholic faith. That's still 50 million Catholics, vs maybe a couple million we'd label as "traditional"
It'd do you well to read the full quote you pasted, instead of just the first sentence. It refers to claims that the acts of a pope before his coronation are not valid, and that a pope only becomes pope upon coronation. The above quote rejects that viewpoint and affirms that the pope is pope from the moment of election. It does not mean that an election having taken place is proof that the man is the real pope, because there are such things as illegal elections and Canon Law mentions many impediments that could make a legitimate election invalid.The point is, "universal acceptance", whatever that means, means absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever. That argument is proven to be altogether futile in light of the established law enacted by the pope that tells us he is "instantly the true pope" upon acceptance of his election.
The point is, "universal acceptance", whatever that means, means absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever. That argument is proven to be altogether futile in light of the established law enacted by the pope that tells us he is "instantly the true pope" upon acceptance of his election.They're completely different issues. The quote you posted teaches that the pope becomes pope when he is elected, not when he is coronated. Universal Peaceful Acceptance is about how you know whether or not the election was valid in the first place.
Why is there any question on this I don't know because what the pope states, is crystal clear.
They're completely different issues. The quote you posted teaches that the pope becomes pope when he is elected, not when he is coronated. Universal Peaceful Acceptance is about how you know whether or not the election was valid in the first place.Amazing.
Amazing.Ok I'll try make it simple for you:
Does that make sense, or do you want me to bust out the crayons next time?No, keep your crayons, it makes perfect sense to sedes.
Also to argue that Universal Peaceful Acceptance is "the sedes challenge to the law" as you have is incredibly moronic, since Universal Peaceful Acceptance would DISPROVE sedevacantism, and it shows you have not read the thread and have no idea what the term even means.If the pope saying "the man elected is instantly the true pope" does not disprove sedeism, nothing will.
It isn't about math, nor is it about the theory of the universality of acceptance. It's about the sedes challenge to the law due to their unwillingness to accept the law, established by the pope, to let the world know that the newly elected pope is indeed the pope.I suppose a sede would question the infallibility of this law, or would say St Pius X (is it St Pius X, or Ven. Pius XII?) had an implicit "unless he's a heretic" distinction in mind.
I forget which cardinal it was who said it, but he said something along the lines of: "The infallible sign that the pope is the pope, is the universal, peaceful acceptance of him as pope" - or words to that effect. Never mind what the popes themselves have said - it's what the cardinal said that matters to the sedes.
"After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto." - Pope St. Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
No, keep your crayons, it makes perfect sense to sedes.They did. The impediments to being elected as pope are all in the canon law you buffoon.
Do you ever wonder why the popes never thought to include all the rhetorical requirements that you add to his formula?
They did. The impediments to being elected as pope are all in the canon law you buffoon.No, they are not.
If the pope saying "the man elected is instantly the true pope" does not disprove sedeism, nothing will.I think there are three ways, logically speaking, Sede could still be true (and to be clear, I don't believe sede is true.)
I suppose a sede would question the infallibility of this law, or would say St Pius X (is it St Pius X, or Ven. Pius XII?) had an implicit "unless he's a heretic" distinction in mind.We have to agree that the pope who wrote the law is not exactly an idiot, and that he put the law in place so that the whole world can be certain 1) that there is a pope, 2) when he became pope and 3) who the pope is. Beyond that, it's entirely out of our hands and we have no need to concern ourselves further. The sedes do not accept this.
We have to agree that the pope who wrote the law is not exactly an idiot, and that he put the law in place so that the whole world can be certain 1) that there is a pope, 2) when he became pope and 3) who the pope is. Beyond that, it's entirely out of our hands and we have no need to concern ourselves further. The sedes do not accept this.Well there have been times when we legitimately weren't certain who the Pope is. St Vincent Ferrer was wrong. Conceivably that could happen again.
As one sede told me a few years ago, popes must pass additional scrutinization by them before being accepted as pope. That's just the way they see it.
I think there are three ways, logically speaking, Sede could still be true (and to be clear, I don't believe sede is true.)Yes, the whole election procedure is a changeable (by popes) act of administration, not doctrine, so certainly it is fallible. The law is enacted so that it be followed - so as to avoid conspiracy theories and exceptions that might leave the whole election and process null. You just need to remember that with sedes, all roads begin - and end with an empty chair, which is why forlorn adds all the additional requirements so as to insure an empty chair.
1: The Papal statement in question could be fallible, as we all know some papal statements are
2: The election could have actually been invalid/fraudulent/etc. (Siri thesis, cօռspιʀαcιҽs about Benedict)
3: The Pope could have left exceptions unstated.
Yes, the whole election procedure is a changeable (by popes) act of administration, not doctrine, so certainly it is fallible.Right. But because this has to do with administration and the govt aspect of the Church, I’d argue that the man elected pope would receive the material chair until he is deposed, even if the spiritual side is under debate (because no one can know if the pope has his spiritual faculties until the Church decides the matter. But I agree that it must be presumed he has spiritual faculties until the Church tells us, unless there is obvious proof he was ineligible before the election).
Yes, the whole election procedure is a changeable (by popes) act of administration, not doctrine, so certainly it is fallible. The law is enacted so that it be followed - so as to avoid conspiracy theories and exceptions that might leave the whole election and process null. You just need to remember that with sedes, all roads begin - and end with an empty chair, which is why forlorn adds all the additional requirements so as to insure an empty chair.I was actually defending a doctrine that goes against sedevacantism, as you'd know if you actually read the thread and didn't just run off into an ill-informed rant as always(like the last time you declared a doctrine NO before an actual Novus Ordo priest explained it and THEN you accepted it). I didn't add any extra requirements, I just explained what your own quote meant because you refused to read half of it.
Therefore the fact that an election historically took place does not make it valid. That's basic logic,...Yes, that is actually basic sede logic, altogether necessary and wholly fundamental to the sede position. As I said above, after accepting their election, popes must then pass additional scrutinization by the sedes before being accepted as pope - so we are in agreement here. If they do not pass your scrutinization, they do not get to be pope. Still, amazing.
....Since not every election is valid, it is false to say that the fact an election took place means that the pope is the pope....
....So the fact that a purported election took place does not immediately make someone the true pope.
Yes, that is actually basic sede logic, altogether necessary and wholly fundamental to the sede position. As I said above, after accepting their election, popes must then pass additional scrutinization by the sedes before being accepted as pope - so we are in agreement here. If they do not pass your scrutinization, they do not get to be pope. Still, amazing.Was this man a true pope?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII)
Was this man a true pope?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII)As I said, we are in agreement that sede logic dictates.
No? Then not every election is valid. Simple logic, beyond your grasp, since you can't even read the quotes you cite yourself.
As I said, we are in agreement that sede logic dictates.Dodging the question again I see, classic.
Just fyi, it seems as though this anti-pope had universal and peaceful acceptance for almost the whole 5 years he was in office, at least there was nothing in the article stating the election was otherwise.
Also, the conciliar popes of the last 60 years had no other claimants to contend with, and finally, sedes did not depose him, The Church made the determination and it was The Church who deposed him. See what I mean now?
I was actually defending a doctrine that goes against sedevacantism, as you'd know if you actually read the thread and didn't just run off into an ill-informed rant as always(like the last time you declared a doctrine NO before an actual Novus Ordo priest explained it and THEN you accepted it). I didn't add any extra requirements, I just explained what your own quote meant because you refused to read half of it.But can we reasonably distinguish cases where large numbers of Catholics disagree between *multiple claimants* (in which case the identity of the Pope would not be a dogmatic fact) and a situation in which there's only one purported claimant? (in which case at least usually the identity of the Pope *would* be considered a dogmatic fact?) If this wasn't the case, you could theoretically work your way up to Protestantism without denying the papal office by simply saying nobody has ever occupied the office since St Peter.
Not all elections are valid, that much is a fact. There have been elections with much pomp and circuмstance with dozens of Cardinals and the support of many Christian rulers that were completely invalid. Therefore the fact that an election historically took place does not make it valid. That's basic logic, not my fault your grasp of logic is as weak as your grasp of history. Since not every election is valid, it is false to say that the fact an election took place means that the pope is the pope. The election must still be valid, and canon law recognises the possibility of invalid elections(which have occurred many times historically) as it mentions the requirements for them to be valid. So the fact that a purported election took place does not immediately make someone the true pope, and that is not what the text you quoted says at all, what it says is that a pope becomes pope from the moment of their election, NOT their coronation.
So, to me, the fact that the vast majority of Traditional Catholics have doubts about their legitimacy/orthodoxy rises to the level or threshold of compromising Universal Acceptance.Ladislaus, I think we started a similar debate but never finished it. Here's my question: Wouldn't the "doubt" about the legitimacy of the pope have to be a legitimate doubt in the first place? I.e. If I doubt the pope is pope because someone told me that a papal election has to happen on Wednesday and +Benedict was elected on Tuesday. In this case, sure, I have a doubt, but the doubt is not based on correct info.
Ladislaus, I think we started a similar debate but never finished it. Here's my question: Wouldn't the "doubt" about the legitimacy of the pope have to be a legitimate doubt in the first place? I.e. If I doubt the pope is pope because someone told me that a papal election has to happen on Wednesday and +Benedict was elected on Tuesday. In this case, sure, I have a doubt, but the doubt is not based on correct info.If you bought Siri thesis JPII would be invalid as well, because he was elected while Siri was still alive ,and presumably thus still pope (according to this theory.)
.
In the same way, most Trads who have doubts about the post-V2 popes did NOT have doubts when the popes were elected, but Trads only doubted AFTER the election, and Trads based such doubts on the popes' heretical acts/words. I say that this kind of "doubt" is misplaced because the theologians at the time of +Bellarmine always held open the possibility that a pope's private faith could fail and he could be declared a heretic. Hence, the idea that the post-V2 popes aren't popes because of a lack of orthodoxy is NOT A VALID REASON TO DOUBT THEIR LEGITIMACY. Only the Church can rule on their legitimacy.
.
So, being that most Trads follow this faulty reasoning, then i'd say their "doubts" do not affect Universal Acceptance because their doubts are wrong.
.
If one wants to argue that some/all of the post-V2 popes were Freemasons and not eligible for election, then ok. But I'd counter that St Pius X and Pius XII changed the election laws, so that doubt is invalid too.
.
The only rational doubt that has only facts to support it is for Paul VI, which one could doubt based on the Siri Thesis. But, any pope JPII and after is not affected by this.
But can we reasonably distinguish cases where large numbers of Catholics disagree between *multiple claimants* (in which case the identity of the Pope would not be a dogmatic fact) and a situation in which there's only one purported claimant? (in which case at least usually the identity of the Pope *would* be considered a dogmatic fact?) If this wasn't the case, you could theoretically work your way up to Protestantism without denying the papal office by simply saying nobody has ever occupied the office since St Peter.Mate I'm actually trying to defend Universal Peaceful Acceptance vs Stubborn here. I was just trying to point out that he was misusing/misintepreting his quote, and in the process he pretty much declared that it's impossible an election could ever be invalid. Well the first John XXIII proves that it can, as does canon law but he ignored that point when I tried it. I didn't bring up the possibility of invalid elections as proof of sedevacantism here, but rather as proof he was misinterpreting the quote.
If you bought Siri thesis JPII would be invalid as well, because he was elected while Siri was still alive ,and presumably thus still pope (according to this theory.)You're right, it would affect JPII as well. However, the only concrete fact which supports this theory is the white smoke. It's not very provable.
Furthermore, IF the New rite of episcopal consecration are invalid, that would prevent Benedict or Francis from becoming Pope even if they had valid elections, if I understand correctly.
Mate I'm actually trying to defend Universal Peaceful Acceptance vs Stubborn here. I was just trying to point out that he was misusing/misintepreting his quote, and in the process he pretty much declared that it's impossible an election could ever be invalid. Well the first John XXIII proves that it can, as does canon law but he ignored that point when I tried it. I didn't bring up the possibility of invalid elections as proof of sedevacantism here, but rather as proof he was misinterpreting the quote.Misusing/misinterpreting Pope Pius X's (and Pius XII's) quote? What is it you don't get about the pope saying what he said? Is it not authoritative enough for you, or too incomplete, or too lacking in requirements, or is it in some way so unclear to you that you must reject what he said and instead, look to canon law as if the pope who wrote the law did not, and cling to a cardinal's words for what he said is infallible proof - of which you do not believe anyway?
I get your confusion since I argued a bit about the mechanics of it earlier, but I conceded the point there and now I'm trying to correct Stubborn's illogical arguments against it. I still have a lot more to read up on it myself, but it doesn't take knowing and agreeing with something for certain to see when arguments against it are fallacious.