Ah, yes, these are the people we're using as the litmus test of orthodoxy; their Universal Acceptance of Francis means that he must be the pope.

Alright, so Ladislaus said this on the "59% of Catholics support Roe v Wade" thread, and Matthew understandably didn't want a derail there, but I still think this is worth talking about *somewhere* so I'm making a new thread.

I think I've brought this up before, and don't think I've gotten a good answer to it.  If we define a true Catholic as "one who holds all the dogmas of the Church, rather than picking and choosing between them" then it seems most likely that while most Novus Ordos are not Catholic, most Catholics are Novus Ordo.  Now, I realize this post technically mentions Francis, and Francis is sometimes doubted even in the NO, but we know from context that the quoted section means not just Francis, but everyone all the way back to 1958.

I guess what I don't get is why does only doubt among "Traditional" (whatever that means exactly) Catholics matter?  I mean,, sure, if you think the Novus Ordo mass is inherently evil, *of course* you're very likely going to doubt that the man who promulgated it was a real pope.  Certainly, Archbishop Lefebvre had such doubts.  But does your average *conservative* Catholic, who accepts all the dogmas, but also accepts Vatican II, ever really doubt?  At the least, did he before Francis?

It seems like *even if* you only include 1% of the Novus Ordo as truly Catholic, that's still like 90% of the Catholic world, compared to 10% "traditional" Catholics.  If you include even 5% of the NO as truly Catholic, that's 98%.

What am I missing here?

"Universal acceptance" is a modernist term coined by certain recent theologians that is often misused, in this case it is misused in regards to the status of popes.

First off, within the Church, whenever the word "Universal" is used, it does not mean a "current unanimity" at all, it only means the "current unanimity" within the Novus Ordo religion whose church was born about 1965.

Within the true Church, whenever the word "Universal" is used, it is inclusive of the element of time, as in, "since the time of the Apostles and for always", as well as possessing an "almost unanimous" consent of the Fathers, theologians and Catholic teachings since the time of the Apostles. So there is your first clue that "The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue" is NO.

So when one speaks of some "universal acceptance" as an infallible sign that the pope is the pope, we understand that whole idea to be an idea inspired and promoted by Novus Ordo thinking. OTOH, if it were in fact a doctrine or a teaching of the Church, which it isn't, but if it were, then it we are certain that like all future elections, the election will always have been deemed valid by the Universal Church, i.e. the Church of the previous 2000 years.  

The false NO teaching (which many accept as if it were a true doctrine) referred to as "true popes" being "infallible safe" or the pope having some "infallibly safety", is also accepted by nearly everyone. Which "doctrine" basically means the pope is divinely protected from ever saying or doing anything that could do great damage to the Church. Little damages here and there he can do, but not major damage - that is basically their thinking as relates to the NO doctrine of "infallibly safety".

Meanwhile, since before the time of Pope St. Pius X, popes have written into the law of papal elections that the man, once he accepts his election, is not only "instantly the true pope", but also that "he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". If this does not meet the criteria of popes' infallible safety, then nothing does.

So using the NO "doctrine" of "infallibly safety", what need is there of the NO "doctrine" of "universal acceptance"? Does not the idea of "universal acceptance" undermine, negate or otherwise demonstrate a decided and pronounced lack of faith in the idea of "infallible safety", rendering it altogether meaningless?

It's not universal acceptance, it's universal adherence. The Conciliar Popes don't have universal adherence as the on-the-ground rejection of Humanae Vitae (1968) as well as other teachings of the Church proved.  

^^^This makes a lot more sense than "universal acceptance".

ByzCat, I've seen polls where very nearly 100% of nominal NO Catholics are heretical on one point of doctrine or another.  Even Michael Voris posted a video where he came to the conclusion that 0% of nominal Catholics under a certain age can still be called Catholic (based on various polling data).  There's an old guard of Novus Ordo conservatives beginning to die off, but that's about it.

If you read the theologians who speak of Universal Acceptance being the criterion for legitimacy, look at the rationale they give.  They say it's because the Church cannot adhere to a false "rule of faith".  Among all those who accept the V2 Popes, how many actually consider them to be rules of faith?  99.9% feel entitled to accept what they like and reject what they don't like.  They're nearly all relativists to one degree or another.  In my experience, probably about 1% of Novus Ordo Catholics are still recognizable as Catholics based on what they profess.

What's left?  Mostly Traditional Catholics.  And of those, a significant number entertain doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 Popes, including +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier.  Does that sound like "Universal Acceptance" to you?  Not to me.  Universal Acceptance looks more like this:  I'm a Catholic living in the early 1950s.  Everyone simply KNOWS that Pius XII is the pope.  No dispute whatsoever.  No consternation or troubled consciences.  That's why it's also often called "Peaceful" Acceptance.  Catholics are absolutely untroubled about the legitimacy of Pius XII.  Is that really what we have today?  No, what we have today doesn't even begin to resemble the Universal Acceptance that was in place during the reign of Pius XII.

"Universal acceptance" is a modernist term coined by certain recent theologians that is often misused, in this case it is misused in regards to the status of popes.

You do realized, right, that Universal Acceptance is a termed used by R&R to DEFEND the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.  While the term may be of recent coinage, the concept has been around for a long time.

You just whip out this "recent theologians" and "20th century theologians" thing every time you don't like something ... and half the time you're wrong about the history of it.  You just assume, because you don't like something, that it must have been a recent innovation.

It's not universal acceptance, it's universal adherence. The Conciliar Popes don't have universal adherence as the on-the-ground rejection of Humanae Vitae ( 1968 ) as well as other teachings of the Church proved.  

Yes, that's to my point also.  Theologians describe the concept of Universal Acceptance as deriving from the fact that the Church recognizes the Pope as a rule of faith and cannot adhere to a false rule of faith.  As I mentioned, the number of Novus Ordites who actually accept the V2 hierarchy's Magisterium are next to zero.  So how can those of us who still, thank God, have the faith look to the Novus Ordo throngs to determine our own rule of faith?  It's nonsense.  That would be as if the Arians had managed to install one of their own onto the Holy See and claiming that, since 90% of the Church had gone Arian, this man was suddenly a legitimate pope.

And lost with this entire Universal Acceptance concept is the contradiction.  If we hold the sentiments of the Novus Ordites as our rule, then we must accept the teachings of Vatican II and the New Mass, since these are JUST AS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED as the V2 papal claimants themselves.  Both the acceptance of their legitimacy and the acceptance of their doctrine are derived from the same principle, the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens.  So, if we accept the legitimacy of the V2 claimants on this principle, then by the same principle we are bound to accept their doctrine:  Vatican II, the New Mass, all of it (with some room for dispute left regarding minor points and points of interpretation, etc.)

To be clear, I here speak only of those in the novus Ordo who accept all the dogmas of the Church, at least on principle.  I'm trying to engage with your theory on its own terms, as much as I can.  So the fact that Joe Biden doesn't doubt that Francis is the Pope shouldn't matter, but the fact that someone like Michael Voris doesn't would, because he adheres to all the teaching of the Church, on principle.  I don't think you can rule someone out just because they attend the new mass or accept Vatican II (because that's question begging), and I don't think you can rule someone out because they on principle accept every dogma, but have a sincere misunderstanding of how some dogma works (say they accept transubstantiation because the Church says so, but still has some misunderstanding of it.) 

My issue is that 1% of the Novus Ordo is still 5-10 times as large as the "Traditional Catholic" world.  So I don't understand why only "traditional Catholics" by whatever measure are being counted.  Maybe the logical conclusion of my line of questioning is that Vatican II has to be reconciled somehow, but that could indeed be the case (cue lynching by this entire forum  ;D), or it could be the case that the framework being presented here is not the correct basis for rejecting/questioning Vatican II (TBH, though, I don't know really anyone who thinks Vatican II was meant to be infallible.  Most Novus Ordo conservatives that I know think the docuмent is due respect, but not exactly infallible, or at least not *definitely* infallible.  Whereas I know plenty of people who are converts from Protestantism, who attend the NO, who accept every dogma of the Church, and have never questioned the most recent popes.)  

On the other hand, if your argument is that *any* Catholic dissent undermines the ecclesia credens (such as Lefebvre, Williamson, and Tissier, as you mentioned) then I don't see why the same argument wouldn't justify Old Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy.

If you read the theologians who speak of Universal Acceptance being the criterion for legitimacy, look at the rationale they give.  They say it's because the Church cannot adhere to a false "rule of faith".  Among all those who accept the V2 Popes, how many actually consider them to be rules of faith?  99.9% feel entitled to accept what they like and reject what they don't like.  They're nearly all relativists to one degree or another.  In my experience, probably about 1% of Novus Ordo Catholics are still recognizable as Catholics based on what they profess.

When you say "accept what they like and reject what they don't like" are you referring to non infallible papal teachings, or church teachings? 

Sedevacantists and Sedeplenists do seem to disagree on to what extent a true pope can be seriously, seriously off in his non-infallible teaching, and still be truly pope, but that seems to be a disagreement between people who are disagreeing on *what* the Catholic Church teaches, not people who disagree that we have to adhere faithfully to what the Church teaches, so  I don't think you can rule someone out that way.  

"I don't agree with Francis on the death penalty, but I still think he's Pope" is different than "I don't agree with transubstantiation, even though I know its a dogma, but I'm still Catholic" in my opinion.