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.
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 ... what am I missing here?I don't think you're missing much and I mostly agree with what you've said here, ByzCat; only, UA is primarily about the Hierarchy's Authority, not first and foremost about numbers among the laity - see for e.g. that dogmatic Bull where Pope Pius XII explains the principle, in saying that the Assumption of Our Lady is clearly proved to be an Infallible Truth, by the very fact that all the world's Bishops were morally unanimous about it being definable as dogma: "Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church." (Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, p. 12) Please See http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
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".
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.Can you explain what you mean by universal adherence?
I don't think you're missing much and I mostly agree with what you've said here, ByzCat; only, UA is primarily about the Hierarchy's Authority, not first and foremost about numbers among the laity - see for e.g. that dogmatic Bull where Pope Pius XII explains the principle, in saying that the Assumption of Our Lady is clearly proved to be an Infallible Truth, by the very fact that all the world's Bishops were morally unanimous about it being definable as dogma: ...
"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.
^^^This makes a lot more sense than "universal acceptance".
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.
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.)
You do realize, 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.Yes, exactly. The term *is* of recent coinage, and certainly, the concept, being inherent to the election, 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.
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?
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.
This "universal adherence" concept undermines the V2 papal legitimacy even more than mere "acceptance".It certainly does undermine the conciliar popes legitimacy even more, but it still makes more sense than Universal Acceptance and/or infallibly safe.
Leaving aside the rest of this post (which is more vitriolic than I feel comfortable being at the moment, I'll just say that much), this particular point is a a big. reason I haven't been convinced of Sedevacantism. In my experience, they tend to quote ultramontanist theologians from between Vatican I, and Vatican II, to defend their extremely high view of the papacy, but they can't prove to me that that was a consensus, or even if there was, that a consensus for a super short period of history is itself definitive. I might be wrong on how the ordinary magisterium works, but I haven't yet been shown that *the Church* teaches that 5-6 popes in a row teaching something in non-infallible encyclicals means that it has to be right.
I whip out 19th / 20th century theologians ("recent theologians") because their own speculations and teachings are taken to be teachings of the Church, even to the point of being dogmatic teachings to many, which is one major reason we are in this crisis.
The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception, such as condoms and birth control pills, is morally unacceptable.
This teaching is rejected even among Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly, who tend to hold views on other social issues that fall more in line with official teaching when compared to the wider Catholic population. About one in 10 (13 percent) in this group said contraception is morally wrong, with 87 percent saying it is either acceptable or not a moral issue.
Universal acceptance of Francis by Who?You should probably calm down :) I didn't personally attack you, I asked a question based on what somebody said.
87 percent are excommunicated by reason of mortal sin. They are NOT to receive communion. Therefore "Universal acceptance" is a crack pot idea in this day and age. Are you so dense that you haven't heard about Vatican II and the beginning of the great apostasy?
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.My argument is less like that, and more based on 90-99% of the 10% of Trinitarians remaining, if that makes sense. My argument against you (and to be clear my issue here is mostly with the logic of the argument moreso than any particular conclusion) is based on those Novus Ordos who do actually accept the Magisterium, not those who don't. (Why do you say the number of NOs who actually accept the V2 hierarchy's magisterium is next to zero? And even if its 1%, that's still a lot more than the trad movement.)
BTW, I'm not 100% certain that Francis is Pope either.
And even if its 1%, that's still a lot more than the trad movement.)
So I'm bothered by the logic here, but I'm not *actually* accusing Sedevacantists of heresy. That's above my pay grade.You wouldn’t be accusing us of heresy, what we would be guilty of would be schism, if he were in fact a true pope.
I don’t think these concepts ever included the laity. So it doesn’t matter if a pope is accepted or rejected by whatever percentage of the laity.
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948
You wouldn’t be accusing us of heresy, what we would be guilty of would be schism, if he were in fact a true pope.
However, these canonists say the following about a doubtful pope and schism:
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-)
Also, in the book “The Defense of the Catholic Church" by Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J..
On page 259 Fr. Doyle states the following:
"The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”
Then on page 260 of the same book, here is what he writes:
The Supreme Pontiff can lose the Primacy in these ways:
1. By voluntary resignation, as in the case of Celestine V.
2. By open heresy, by which he ceases to be a member of Christ's Church. This, however, while not contradictory to reason, is hardly conceivable.
3. By insanity.
4. By death.
And, you see, that is PRECISELY the problem. Under a normal "Universal Peaceful Acceptance" scenario you could no more be less than 100% certain that the papal claimant is the Pope than you are 100% certain that God is Three Divine Persons. It's a dogmatic fact, so if you don't believe it with the certainty of faith, that means you don't believe as it must be believed, and you are not a strict sedeplenist. It does not suffice for a Catholic to say, "He's probably the pope." or even "It's extremely likely that he's the pope." If it were merely "extremely likely" that Pius XII was a legitimate pope, then it's also just "extremely likely" that Our Lady was assumed into heaven.I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the legitimacy of Pius XII, but if I did, I'd say the same thing I'm saying about Francis. "I assume he's the Pope until the Church tells me he isn't."
Now, the mere fact that so many of us feel as you do, uncertain about whether he's the Pope, is prima facie evidence that there is in fact no Universal Peaceful Acceptance. Otherwise, none of us would so much as entertain even a shadow of a doubt. We would be in the same state as the Catholics of the early 1950s vis-a-vis Pius XII.
These are very important quotes. Father William Jenkins cites a prominent theologian who spends a great deal of time on the "Papa Dubius" scenario and why such a one lacked any formal authority. I wish could track those quotes down.I guess the tricky thing in this case is there's no alternate claimant (unless you take Pope Michael seriously... I don't) whereas in previous doubtful pope scenarios there were in fact false claimants.
I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the legitimacy of Pius XII, but if I did, I'd say the same thing I'm saying about Francis. "I assume he's the Pope until the Church tells me he isn't."That’s right, you aren’t a Catholic. A Catholic must profess the entire Catholic Faith. You do not profess the true faith because you publicly doubt the dogma that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God. Dogmas are dogmas ALL must be completely believed with divine and Catholic Faith. Frankly, you had better get down, right now, on your knees and ask God for the grace to make an act of faith.
Though honestly, this raises other questions. Are you as sure that the Catholic Church is the one True Church ,as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox one, is the one true Church, as you are that God is Three Divine Persons? TBH, I'm not. Although I certainly *believe* both, I'm much more sure on the Trinity than I am that I'm on the right side of the Great Schism. So, by that logic itself maybe I'm "not a real Catholic." Maybe that actually is a way to make sense of the conclusion you originally described. I think most conservative Sedeplenists would admit they're more sure on the Trinity than on Catholicism, en toto, but Sedevacantists would be much more likely to deny any uncertainty about either proposition, on grounds that they're heretics for having *doubt* or something.
IDK if that thought made sense.
That’s right, you aren’t a Catholic. A Catholic must profess the entire Catholic Faith. You do not profess the true faith because you publicly doubt the dogma that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God. Dogmas are dogmas ALL must be completely believed with divine and Catholic Faith. Frankly, you had better get down, right now, on your knees and ask God for the grace to make an act of faith.By that same logic though, its perfectly possible that anyone who expresses doubt that Francis, or whoever, is the true pope is also not a real Catholic (or heck, vice versa, I guess.) The lack of certainty by certain individuals doesn't seem to matter much one way or another here.
By that same logic though, its perfectly possible that anyone who expresses doubt that Francis, or whoever, is the true pope is also not a real Catholic (or heck, vice versa, I guess.) The lack of certainty by certain individuals doesn't seem to matter much one way or another here.Believing that Bergoglio is or is not a pope is not a matter of dogma. If he were a true pope and you don’t unite yourself with him, as St. Peter’s successor, you would be committing an act of schism unless you have good reason to believe he is not the Vicar of Christ (see the quotes above). That the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God is dogmatic. If you pertinaciously doubt or deny this or any dogma you are a heretic and thus you put yourself outside the Church.
By that same logic though, its perfectly possible that anyone who expresses doubt that Francis, or whoever, is the true pope is also not a real Catholic (or heck, vice versa, I guess.) The lack of certainty by certain individuals doesn't seem to matter much one way or another here.Well said.
Believing that Bergoglio is or is not a pope is not a matter of dogma. If he were a true pope and you don’t unite yourself with him, as St. Peter’s successor, you would be committing an act of schism unless you have good reason to believe he is not the Vicar of Christ (see the quotes above). That the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God is dogmatic. If you pertinaciously doubt or deny this or any dogma you are a heretic and thus you put yourself outside the Church.Can you explain pertinaciously?
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".Yes, that's true, Stubborn. The man elected receives the Pontificate from God and is free to exercise Universal Jurisdiction. But the sedes will say that this does not apply to a heretic, whose election is invalid. Now, I'm not a sede, as you know, Stubborn. The importance of Universal Acceptance here is that it proves that the Pope, even in the internal forum, is not a heretic. If you disagree, how do you answer the text of Pope Ven. Pius XII, in an infallible docuмent, appealing to the principle of universal agreement as doctrinal proof? I know you don't believe in "20th century theologians", so I won't cite them to you. :)
But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty ... The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true."
: “So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter ...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”
This has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.Sure it does. Otherwise, Ladislaus, Pope Pius XII was guilty of a false argument in an infallible docuмent, when H.H. said, "from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof". What does that imply? The Universal Agreement of the Church's Teaching Authority cannot err on such matters, just as a Pontiff cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra. Do you disagree? The Ecclesia Credens is not infallible by itself in a way independent of due dependence on the Ecclesia Docens imho.
Yes, that's true, Stubborn. The man elected receives the Pontificate from God and is free to exercise Universal Jurisdiction. But the sedes will say that this does not apply to a heretic, whose election is invalid. Now, I'm not a sede, as you know, Stubborn. The importance of Universal Acceptance here is that it proves that the Pope, even in the internal forum, is not a heretic. If you disagree, how do you answer the text of Pope Ven. Pius XII, in an infallible docuмent, appealing to the principle of universal agreement as doctrinal proof? I know you don't believe in "20th century theologians", so I won't cite them to you. :)I am guessing that you are referencing his infallible constitution on the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother into heaven. But it does not really matter because if he in fact appeals to the principle of universal agreement, then he is necessarily referring to the fact that said teaching is one that the Church has held as true, either since the time of the Apostles and / or is found in Scripture.
Can you explain pertinaciously?Come on, I’m not going to hold your hand. I’ve explained enough, look it up.
Sure it does. Otherwise, Ladislaus, Pope Pius XII was guilty of a false argument in an infallible docuмent, when H.H. said, "from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof".
But it does not really matter because if he in fact appeals to the principle of universal agreement, then he is necessarily referring to the fact that said teaching is one that the Church has held as true, either since the time of the Apostles and / or is found in Scripture.Stubborn, it is para 12 in Munificentissimus Deus, where Universal Agreement among the Episcopate, is said to be an indication of a Truth known through the OUM of the Church. I thought I'd given the link earlier in the first post, but here it is again. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html)
No, you are guilty of the false argument. You are extrapolating from the ordinary universal Magisterium to the universal acceptance thesis, which are two different things.Ordinary Universal Magisterium and Universal Acceptance Thesis are two different things, granted. But Universal Acceptance is based on the principle that the Teaching Church, the Hierarchy, is Indefectible. That's why all the Bishops collectively cannot adhere to a false Pope, otherwise Church Indefectibility would have been lost. If you disagree, please explain the text of Van Noort where he concludes, "it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”. And Fr. Connell says the Church is infallible both in declaring and in believing that the Pope is the Pope.
Stubborn, it is para 12 in Munificentissimus Deus, where Universal Agreement among the Episcopate, is said to be an indication of a Truth known through the OUM of the Church. I thought I'd given the link earlier in the first post, but here it is again. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html)All I make of it is that the pope asked the bishops if they thought it prudent for him to infallibly define, that which already enjoyed universal agreement, but for whatever reason was never infallibly defined.
Yes, it is about the dogma of the Assumption. But that dogma was being denied by some at that time, and so the Pope consulted the Bishops before going ahead to define it. What do you make of this part especially, "it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way ... Thus, from the *universal agreement* of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof." If Universal Teaching Authority requires the explicit approval of all Bishops from the time of the Apostles, then how could the Pope have said this after asking only the Bishops in his time?
The Dogma of the Assumption is certainly found in Scripture and Tradition. But it was made certain beyond all doubt by the Dogmatic Definition. In preparing for the Dogmatic Definition, the Pope said, the Universal Agreement of the Episcopate, is itself an infallible proof that the doctrine is true. So Infallible Papal Magisterium has endorsed the principle that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can declare and teach infallible truths.This ^^^ (bold) is not so and that is not what he said, what he said was: "...Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof ..."
Ordinary Universal Magisterium and Universal Acceptance Thesis are two different things, granted. But Universal Acceptance is based on the principle that the Teaching Church, the Hierarchy, is Indefectible.
I guess the tricky thing in this case is there's no alternate claimant (unless you take Pope Michael seriously... I don't) whereas in previous doubtful pope scenarios there were in fact false claimants.
Come on, I’m not going to hold your hand. I’ve explained enough, look it up.I did a bit of research on this, pertiniciously holding to doubt seems to entail a refusal to believe what the Church defines, not merely a lack of absolute certainty. I'm struggling with how such an idea would fit with sacred scripture either, in Mark 9:24 "I believe, help my unbelief" seems to be accepted as a genuine act of faith. There is no "because you have doubt, its not real faith" or anything like that.
It's not essential that there be an alternate claimant. But, aha, in fact many hold that Cardinal Siri was rightly elected instead of Roncalli, and was invalidly forced to resign under duress.*perhaps* that's the case, and I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that that's the case. I do see why Novus Ordo Conservatives don't think this is comparable. St Vincent of Lerins was wrong on who the Pope was, *because there were multiple claimants*, accepted by large numbers of the Catholic world. Whereas the Sedevacantist or the Sede-doubtist or whatever term you want to use, is rejecting the only claimant (I'm sorry, Michael really doesn't count). Pre-Francis, I'm guessing those doubts were only held by about 5% of the Catholic population *at most* (and I'm excluding the people who deny one or more dogmas from Catholic here). Francis is admittedly an interesting case, in that he's doubted by even people in the Novus Ordo, and there are people who wouldn't normally identify as Sedevacantist friendly who have doubts there.
Pertinicious seems more like "I know the Church teaches X, but I believe Y instead."
Francis is admittedly an interesting case, in that he's doubted by even people in the Novus Ordo, and there are people who wouldn't normally identify as Sedevacantist friendly who have doubts there.
For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
This does lead to something of a quagmire. Let's say the entire Church thinks that something is heretical, and you have a Pope who persists in claiming that it is not. After all, the Pope's teaching on a matter of faith trumps any other judgement in that regard.Yeah, I suspect what would happen in that case is you'd very likely have some kind of declaration from the College of Cardinals declaring that this man lost his office, or something like that. And yeah, I could imagine that happening to Francis at some point, he's been so heterodox that even cardinals have called him out on it.
Cardinal Billot, in treating of the Universal Acceptance issue says this:One: I don't see how Cardinal Billot is inherently right here. Is there some reason why his statement here has to be accepted? There could be, but I'm not seeing it.So here's the problem for R&R. If it is impossible for the Church to adhere to a false rule of faith, then the Church could no more accept the errors of Vatican II (incorrectly) than it could incorrectly accept a Vatican II Pope. So there's an inherent contradiction in R&R's use of "Universal Acceptance".
One: I don't see how Cardinal Billot is inherently right here. Is there some reason why his statement here has to be accepted? There could be, but I'm not seeing it.Cardinal Billot, born 1846 / died 1931 = 19th/20th century theologian. Don't buy into the error he taught that that the pope is the living rule of faith.
Two: I don't see how Cardinal Billot could possibly be right here. By this logic did St Vincent of Lerins adhere to a false rule of faith?
Although I certainly *believe* both, I'm much more sure on the Trinity than I am that I'm on the right side of the Great Schism.
Cardinal Billot, born 1846 / died 1931 = 19th/20th century theologian. Don't buy into the error he taught that that the pope is the living rule of faith.
Before going to other things or even discussing these matters, ByzCat, you must first, as others said, firmly hold the Catholic Faith, pray for enlightenment, and make many acts of Faith till the habitual virtue of Faith becomes strong in you. Please make these acts of Faith, and pray for the Grace of a stronger Faith.
Not this crap gain. Yes, by all means, we'll take Stubborn's word for it instead, someone who can barely read English vs. not only Billot but all the theologians who taught the same thing. Cardinal Billot was highly respected by St. Pius X, to the point that he made him a Cardinal in 1911 even though he wasn't a bishop.Yes, by all means accept the wrong opinion of the political activist Cardinal Billot as if it is dogma, but if you do and remain a trad, you are left without a rule of faith -or- embrace the NO and get your rule of faith back. So goes the sede mindset.
But all you readers should bow to Stubborn's wisdom instead, who dismisses this "error" with the waive of his hand, an error which somehow escaped the detection of the Vatican's entire Congregation of Faith.