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.htmlYes, 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.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.
Other theologians have said the same. The Bishops cannot all collectively fall into error, as Hierarchical Indefectibility prevents this. But they would have all fallen into error and worse if they had universally accepted an objectively false Pope. How can that be possible? Dom Gueranger explains how even a doubtful Pope would become certain upon Universal Acceptance. "when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year , Vol XII, pg. 188
https://catholicism.org/modern-popes.htmlHow do you square that last text with your idea, Ladislaus, that a Pope deemed "doubtful" by lay individuals and vagrant clergy cannot exercise authority and is impeded from doing so? Not even those theologians who said genuine doubts can be exculpatory went so far as to say that your doubts can prevent the Pope from exercising his authority. It's only some sede-doubists, privationists etc who say that.
If Universal Acceptance is not there and there are two or more competing candidates accepted by some portion of the Hierarchy with the adherence of some Clergy, then some doubts can be entertained even by the laity; perhaps the election has not been completed. But once Universal Acceptance of a single candidate among the Hierarchy has been verified, then it is no longer doubtful who is the Pope, and the Church has declared and judged that that single Pope is validly elected. The Church will never declare at some future time that Popes Paul VI, John Paul I and II and any other Pope who died universally accepted was never a Pope in the first place.
She has already declared them to be Her Popes. Salza and Siscoe have cited teaching from John of St. Thomas to the effect that acceptance from the Hierarchy is almost like a Church Definition. Does a Church definition become "doubtful" because we doubt it?
Topic: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue (Read 3882 times)