Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant Xavier on October 29, 2019, 12:14:11 PM
-
1. When we trace the theological note pre-Vatican II theologians assign to the proposition "A Universally Accepted Pope is certainly the legitimately elected Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church", it is almost always assigned a theological note so high, e.g. doctrina catholica, facta dogmatica, even de fide or proxima fidei sometimes, that it clearly follows that it is not licit for an informed Catholic - completely aware or thoroughly instructed in this teaching, its theological basis and the authorities who have explained its theological note - to doubt or deny it. This has been docuмented recently with many citations in SSPX-endorsed "True or False Pope" by S&S. See for e.g. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html)
But when on the contrary we trace the history of the awareness of "Universal Acceptance" as a Catholic Doctrine in the Traditional Movement, the history is a little less clear - or rather, it is very unclear. What is certain is that Fr. Boulet, in 2004, makes reference to Universal Acceptance, but only very briefly, in disregarding the so-called Siri Thesis. "Finally, Cardinal Siri died in 1989. But, the most important reason why we must discard the "Pope Siri" theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point. Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. 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… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election." From a 2004 Article: http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm (http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm)
2. Whether Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the theological note assigned by Billot, Van Noort et al is another question, because the matter had not yet been very deeply studied in the 60s and 70s, when the question was just being raised. Archbishop Lefebvre commissioned Society Theologians to investigate the matter. A study of Xavier Da Silveira makes reference to it in principle, yet not as something absolutely certain, but also seems to discount its application to the post-Conciliar Popes at the same time. So perhaps +ABL's views were largely informed by Da Silveira's study. What +ABL's precise views were, and whether they were always consistently held, has been continuously disputed. +ABL did make reference in 1979 to something very much like UA, i.e. Convalidation by unanimous acceptance. "Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians." But it is unclear and uncertain if this was considered theological opinion or a Catholic doctrine.
Anyway, the question today is independent of +ABL. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis were elected in 2005 and 2013, 14 and 22 years respectively after +ABL's holy death. The questions before us today are, where is the Teaching Church? Does the Hierarchy recognize the Pope? If the answer to those questions suggests the Catholic Bishops of today recognize the Pope, then he is surely Pope. It may be, some time in the future, that the Pope, losing universal acceptance, also falls from the pontificate. This also complicates the fact for those who are Bishops - like +ABL was - since it may be up to them to pass judgment. But, that is not for us.
Thoughts? Let's take just one citation from the first link to see what note theologians assign to the proposition,
"Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is [present tense] the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … 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 [to St. Peter - Xavier]." (Sources of Revelation, p. 265)
-
You should get on the horn and tell that to Bishop Williamson to save him from his heresy.
Universal Acceptance does not apply to the Vatican II papal claimants. We've gone over this about a dozens times already, but you persist in denouncing +Lefebvre and +Williamson as heretics.
-
Heh. If we have indeed discussed it precisely a dozen times, then it has also been exactly a dozen times that you have evaded both questions Q1: Where is the Teaching Church today? Q2: Does the Teaching Church recognize the Pope? The answer to those questions is the first answer to this crisis.
I consider His Excellency Bishop Williamson to be a Catholic Bishop, and if I spoke to H.E., I would kneel, kiss his hand, and address him as "Your Excellency ... " before asking my question, just as I do to my own SSPX Bishops and Priests. However, that's irrelevant to the docuмented fact that the entire Society of St. Pius X, as of 2014 (I think it was), has officially endorsed the dogmatic fact teaching by endorsing TOFP.
I've clearly said no one is a heretic if the theological note has not been explained to him - which, according to you, has now been explaned to you "about a dozens times already". So, it is calumny and slander - par for the course from you - to accuse me of accusing saintly +ABL or +BW of being heretics. I have never done that. ever.
Yes, I would discuss it reverently with +BW, in the manner I explained, but not polemically as you seem to wish. I believe Sean is doing that also. Anyway, that's your internal Resistance issue. For me, my hope is still that a deeper understanding and common awareness of this teaching among both Society and Resistance can lead in the future to a happy SSPX-Resistance reconciliation or re-union. Because, if the Pope is the Pope, then to obtain Ordinary Jurisdiction from him, as the SSPX Bishops obtained after the Year of Mercy, as Bishop Fellay has explained, is something not only not evil, but even something positively good - their right in fact, an injustice now corrected.
-
There were plenty of early popes elected and universally recognised while their predecessors still lived in exile. Did UPA depose the exiled popes, or does UPA not necessarily mean the man is true pope?
-
I raised the Universal Acceptance issue with Rev. Father Cekada in 2012 on Ignis Ardens, even before Siscoe (who PM'ed me to ask for a source I cited) and Salza had published their book. Father Cekada's answer to the text of Billot I cited was literally shocking to me, it was something like (IA is down now) "As regards Billot et al, as far as I know, dogmatic fact teaching applies only to non-heretics" or something close to that. Rev. Father Cekada said he would more closely study the matter and get back to me on it. I have no doubt that Fr. Cekada is a good man and would make a valuable addition to the team - if only we Traditional Catholics were all united, we would have so much more clout in demanding the Restoration of Tradition. I can't wait for doctrinal discussions round #2 to begin, where the Society Theologians can begin again presenting the best possible case for the Catholic Faith and Catholic Tradition that human reason aided by divine Faith and supernatural grace can offer. Fr. Cekada's detailed studies on the new liturgy for e.g. still have a lot of value, and are taken extremely seriously even by some mainsteam non-sedevacantist Catholic scholars.
Forlorn, if you scroll down and read the OP article, many of the objections are answered including the one on the "second man" scenario. The historical example of Pope Innocent II is also explained vis-a-vis anti-pope Anacletus II. At any rate, those were contested elections, while no competing candidate (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI, who has stated numerous times he recognizes Pope Francis as his Pope) is contesting the election of Pope Francis today. "Anacletus II’s election was not uncontested (‘peaceful’), nor was he ever ‘universally accepted’ as Pope by the Church. “The long version at Newadvent.org” refers to his election as “the contested papal election of the year 1130.”[16] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/Peaceful%20and%20Universal%20Acceptance%20article/Article%20-%20Peaceful%20and%20Universal%20Acceptance%20Part%20II%20-%20final%20-%201Peter5.docx#_ftn16) The reason it was contested is because it took place 3 hours after the election of the true Pope Innocent II – who was proclaimed to be the true Pope by three synods held later same year."
As we learn from the text of His Eminence Cardinal Journet, whom Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre called "a deep thinker and a great theologian", the election of the Pope being in some way contested (by an opposing candidate) is essential to there not being UA. "[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. "Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest.[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn4) The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected."[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn5)
-
The existence of a dogmatic fact hinges on the meaning of "practically unanimous". Specifically, in the case of the question of the legitimacy of a papal election, it depends on the meaning of "universal and peaceful acceptance". Questioning whether or not a decision is "practically unanimous" or "universally and peacefully accepted" does not constitute the denial of dogmatic facts in general. The existence of a dispute concerning the applicability of these terms to the current situation when combined with the fact that very few Catholics (clergy or otherwise) actually obey the authority of these claimants, is prima facie evidence that the papal claimant's legitimacy is not universally and peacefully accepted (neither by the clergy nor by the laity). If it were universally and peacefully accepted, the SSPX would never have come into existence (and therefore the FSSP would never have come into existence, nor any other [former] Ecclesia Dei communities) nor would there be any sede vacantists. I don't see how a group of doubtfully consecrated bishops who believe in the heretical doctrine of collegiality could ever be a measure of the legitimacy of a true Roman Pontiff. If you consider only those bishops who have been ordained and consecrated in the traditional Roman rite, we could say that it is a practically unanimous decision that the Conciliar popes are at least doubtfully legitimate. And St Robert Bellarmine along with the practically unanimous agreement of Catholic theologians would say that a doubtful pope cannot bind the Church.
-
Salsa and Disco believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. That's why all their arguments are completely wrong. If they understood that only the clergy who have been ordained and consecrated in the traditional Roman rite and who continue to teach traditional Catholic doctrine are the true clergy of the Catholic Church then they would see that there is no UPA of an obviously heretical pope. When you believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church you run into big problems with the marks of the Church. The Conciliar Church is not one, holy, catholic and apostolic. If it was, there would be no SSPX, FSSP, nor sede vacantists. You're trying to put lipstick on a pig. The Conciliar Church is a disgusting pig. No morally sound person should have anything to do with that heretical, perverted disgusting Fag Mafia-led crime syndicate.
-
If [almost] "Unanimous Acceptance" (misnamed "Universal Acceptance") is a Catholic doctrine, which it isn't, but if it is, then it applies to all things and in all times, not just meant to sift out who, or satisfy curiosities with dogmatic certainty of who the pope is. There is no getting out of this. It would apply to all things always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles.
Through UA, we'd be certain that V2 was a valid council, that all of it's new doctrines and it's "mass" and sacraments are Catholic and valid, that NO priests, bishops and etc., are all validly ordained and consecrated, that CITH brings one closer to God then communion on the tongue, and you can keep on adding to the list into infinity - if UA is a Catholic doctrine.
-
Stubbs, we have Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XIV, if we want Magisterial endorsements of the principle, who apply something very much like Universal or Unanimous (I think that's a distinction without a difference) Acceptance. According to Pope Pius XII, in the infallible Dogmatic Bull MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, the universal agreement of the episcopate that the Assumption was dogmatically definable was already an infallibly certain proof that it was a revealed Truth, an example of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium passing judgment on the question. The exact words of His Holiness are, "those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since 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, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God ... Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof" (para 12). Similarly, Pope Benedict XIV, as we know, said we cannot separate from communion by the Pope recognized by all, for e.g. by dropping his name from the Canon of the Mass, and choosing be non-una-cuм-the Pope. That implies the Pope so recognized is truly Pope.
Clemens Maria, ok, your view is that "unanimous acceptance" would constitute Papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact in principle, but you deny or doubt whether it actually applies to the post-Conciliar Pontiffs. Is that accurate representation of your position? You go on to state that you consider the Hierarchy to consist only of Traditional Catholic Bishops, excluding all mainstream Bishops. But, as you know, the problem with that is, we consult almost any pre-Vatican II definition, and they will tell us, one of the requirements to be a member of the Teaching Church is to have been appointed by the Pope. Without that, a Bishop is called an auxiliary Bishop at most, or sometimes an episcopus vagans if he has no diocese. So, how do you square that with your understanding of where the Hierarchy is?
Take one example from Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra: The Pope is here speaking of an Eastern rite Patriarch, in whose election the Pontiffs give the right to Bishops to elect their Patriarch, but only as a designate. Now, the Pope says, until the Pope makes the appointment by confirming the chosen candidate, the episcopal see or patriarchal throne remains vacant. Doesn't it seem to follow from this that a vagrant Bishop can obtain the power of jurisdiction over a diocese or a see only after some Pope appoints him to it? See para 24, "We commanded that a synod composed exclusively of bishops elect the patriarch. However, We forbade the man elected to be enthroned until he received a letter of confirmation from the Apostolic See ... When this is done, the Roman pontiff will choose one of those recommended and put him in charge of the vacant see". From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quartu.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quartu.htm)
God bless.
-
Stubbs, we have Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XIV, if we want Magisterial endorsements of the principle, who apply something very much like Universal or Unanimous (I think that's a distinction without a difference) Acceptance.
There is a huge distinction that is not being made here. When that distinction is acknowledged and applied, it is impossible to say that UA is a teaching or doctrine of the Church used to identify the pope.
In the context of this subject matter, "Unanimous" means "at this time, everyone believes the same thing except a relative few".
"Universal" means "since the time of the Apostles, and until the end of time always and everywhere, everyone believes the same thing except a relative few" and applies to teachings and traditions.
Some examples of actual doctrines we might say enjoy "Universal Acceptance" are Limbo, The Church's Indefectibility, that each of us have our own Guardian Angel, and the Divine Providence immediately come to mind, but certainly there are a multitude of others I can't think of at the moment.
But to apply a Universal Acceptance to a pope or his election as a way to determine his validity is altogether absurd. And if I am wrong, then UA, being essentially democratic, means "a dogmatic truth determined by majority rule" - which is an altogether Novus Ordo doctrine, not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
-
You go on to state that you consider the Hierarchy to consist only of Traditional Catholic Bishops, excluding all mainstream Bishops. But, as you know, the problem with that is, we consult almost any pre-Vatican II definition, and they will tell us, one of the requirements to be a member of the Teaching Church is to have been appointed by the Pope. Without that, a Bishop is called an auxiliary Bishop at most, or sometimes an episcopus vagans if he has no diocese. So, how do you square that with your understanding of where the Hierarchy is?
I don’t disagree with anything you have explicitly stated in your comments. But I do disagree with your unstated presupposition that there must be at least one member of the Teaching Church living at every moment in time because otherwise the Church will defect.
As evidence against that view I recommend you read Van Noort’s ecclesiology book. He was making the point that the majority opinion is that the Roman See will never defect. He explicitly contemplated the possibility that all the other sees could be simultaneously wiped out in a nuclear war. In that case, how many ordinaries exist? Exactly one, correct? The Roman Pontiff. What happens when he dies? How many ordinaries are there? None! Does the Roman See defect during a vacancy? No! All the theologians are agreed on that. If the Roman See cannot defect during a vacancy then neither can the Church as a whole defect during a vacancy. So a lack of ordinaries does not constitute a defection. Please cite a source for your belief that there must be at least one living ordinary at every moment in time.
-
But to apply a Universal Acceptance to a pope or his election as a way to determine his validity is altogether absurd. And if I am wrong, then UA, being essentially democratic, means "a dogmatic truth determined by majority rule" - which is an altogether Novus Ordo doctrine, not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
This is a good point. UA does not cause a legitimate papacy, but it can be considered a criterion for the subjective certainty regarding it.
I think that there's room for the traditional quoad se and quoad nos distinction when applied to legitimate papacy.
I'll think some more on this later.
-
This is a good point. UA does not cause a legitimate papacy, but it can be considered a criterion for the subjective certainty regarding it.
I think that there's room for the traditional quoad se and quoad nos distinction when applied to legitimate papacy.
I'll think some more on this later.
UA is explained as "an infallible sign" that the man is pope. It doesn't make him the pope (quoad se), but infallibly proves that he is pope (quoad nos).
If a pope has not been peacefully accepted, he may still be the true pope (quoad se), but his legitimacy as Pope will not be infallibly certain (quoad nos).
-
UA is explained as "an infallible sign" that the man is pope. It doesn't make him the pope (quoad se), but infallibly proves that he is pope (quoad nos).
If a pope has not been peacefully accepted, he may still be the true pope (quoad se), but his legitimacy as Pope will not be infallibly certain (quoad nos).
But we have cases that have been brought forth of a legitimately-elected Pope who was hauled off and jailed, and then another was elected in his place and Universally Accepted.
QUOAD SE, the originally-elected Pope was still the legitimate pope, despite it not being manifest QUOAD NOS.
-
But we have cases that have been brought forth of a legitimately-elected Pope who was hauled off and jailed, and then another was elected in his place and Universally Accepted.
QUOAD SE, the originally-elected Pope was still the legitimate pope, despite it not being manifest QUOAD NOS.
I've looked into those cases and the history is sketchy, to say the least. From what I've found, the only time another pope was peacefully accepted after the previous pope was illegally deposed, is when the original pope submitted to the illegal deposition, which the theologians said was equivalent to a resignation.
-
This is a good point. UA does not cause a legitimate papacy, but it can be considered a criterion for the subjective certainty regarding it.
I don't see how. Being that the idea comes from some theologians and is not a teaching or doctrine of the Church, "UA" can only mean a few things; 1) all the cardinals in the conclave accept him as pope, 2) there were no objections based on any canonical impediments or irregularities among the cardinals, 3) back in the olden days, the most common way to know who the pope was, was by word of mouth, which is to say you wouldn't know until everyone else knew.
If UA actually means what it says, then it can only mean one thing, it can only mean that the Church always has, and always will accept with dogmatic certainty whoever gets elected as the true pope no matter how he gets elected, albeit this goes without saying.
-
Let's take this hypothetical scenario.
You have a conclave where a man is elected pope, accepts, and takes the name Pope A. But before the conclave ends and the man is shown to the world, the Cardinals change their mind, depose Pope A, and elect instead Pope B. Then the conclave ends and they roll out Pope B as the Pope. You have Universal Acceptance of Pope B. Yet clearly Pope A is still the legitimate pope. Universal Acceptance cannot depose an otherwise legitimate pope.
-
Let's take this hypothetical scenario.
You have a conclave where a man is elected pope, accepts, and takes the name Pope A. But before the conclave ends and the man is shown to the world, the Cardinals change their mind, depose Pope A, and elect instead Pope B. Then the conclave ends and they roll out Pope B as the Pope. You have Universal Acceptance of Pope B. Yet clearly Pope A is still the legitimate pope. Universal Acceptance cannot depose an otherwise legitimate pope.
I wish that was only a hypothetical scenario.
-
Let's take this hypothetical scenario.
You have a conclave where a man is elected pope, accepts, and takes the name Pope A. But before the conclave ends and the man is shown to the world, the Cardinals change their mind, depose Pope A, and elect instead Pope B. Then the conclave ends and they roll out Pope B as the Pope. You have Universal Acceptance of Pope B. Yet clearly Pope A is still the legitimate pope. Universal Acceptance cannot depose an otherwise legitimate pope.
In your "hypothetical" scenario, the peaceful acceptance of Pope B (John XXIII) would prove that, for whatever reason, Pope A (Siri) was not the Pope. It wouldn't depose Pope A, but would prove that A wasn't the Pope.
-
In your "hypothetical" scenario, the peaceful acceptance of Pope B (John XXIII) would prove that, for whatever reason, Pope A (Siri) was not the Pope. It wouldn't depose Pope A, but would prove that A wasn't the Pope.
It would prove that A wasn't the Pope, while proving B was the pope - which pretty much puts AU directly in the trash bin far as giving dogmatic certainty of who the pope is in that hypothetical scenario.
-
I've looked into those cases and the history is sketchy, to say the least. From what I've found, the only time another pope was peacefully accepted after the previous pope was illegally deposed, is when the original pope submitted to the illegal deposition, which the theologians said was equivalent to a resignation.
The historians do not agree with you. The Liber Pontificalis has Pope Martin I still being the pope more than a year AFTER Pope St Eugene I was elected. Those theologians who wrote about UPA would have been aware of that.
-
It would prove that A wasn't the Pope, while proving B was the pope - which pretty much puts AU directly in the trash bin far as giving dogmatic certainty of who the pope is in that hypothetical scenario.
I don't know why you would say that. The peaceful acceptance of Pope B proves he's the Pope; and therefore proves that A is not the Pope.
-
I don't know why you would say that. The peaceful acceptance of Pope B proves he's the Pope; and therefore proves that A is not the Pope.
See Clemens Maria's response.
-
The historians do not agree with you. The Liber Pontificalis has Pope Martin I still being the pope more than a year AFTER Pope St Eugene I was elected. Those theologians who wrote about UPA would have been aware of that.
What do the historians not agree with? You didn't provide a shred of evidence that contradicts UPA. All you did was refer to a historical case from the 7th century, about which very little is known, and say the Liber Pontificals reports that Martin I was the Pope a year after an unnamed source says Eugene was elected. Even if those two facts are correct, how do you know Eugene was universally accepted before Pope Martin subsequently acquiesced in his election (Ep. Martin xvii in P.L. LXXXVII. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm)?
Sorry, but it will take a lot more "evidence" than what you provided for a Traditional Catholic to reject a doctrine that was unanimously held by all theologians before Vatican II as theologically certain. It is becoming difficult to find anyone that claims to be a Traditional Catholic who accepts Traditional doctrine and Traditional theology as it was taught in the seminaries in the centuries before the council.
-
Look, I’m not denying UPA in principle, I’m saying you and your buddies Salsa and Disco are misapplying the doctrine. How are you any different than the Arians? Anywhere from 75 to 90% of the bishops fell into heresy. If you were alive at that time you would be telling us that the Arians have to be infallibly correct because of practical unanimity. They were wrong and you are wrong. Heretics and apostates don’t get to vote on who is a true pope. But I will grant you that the history of the papacy is obscure at times. But that doesn’t help your case as far as the correct application of the principle at this moment in time.
-
Look, I’m not denying UPA in principle, I’m saying you and your buddies Salsa and Disco are misapplying the doctrine.
How am I missapplying the doctrine?
How are you any different than the Arians?
One difference that comes to mind is that I reject the Arian heresy.
Anywhere from 75 to 90% of the bishops fell into heresy. If you were alive at that time you would be telling us that the Arians have to be infallibly correct because of practical unanimity.
No, but (if I were alive then, and I know what I do now, and), if you denied the legitimacy of a Pope that the entire Church accepted, I would have used the UPA doctrine to refute your error that led you into schism. And history proves that I would have been right, and you would have wrong, since every Pope that was universally accepted during the Arian heresy was the true Pope.
They were wrong and you are wrong.
They were wrong about doctrine, but they weren't wrong about the identity of the Pope. All the true Catholics agreed avout who the true Pope was, and the Arians agreed with them
Heretics and apostates don’t get to vote on who is a true pope.
I agree that the vote of public heretics and apostates doesn't count. That's why your vote doesn't count today, just as the vote of every other fallen away Catholic who left the Church for a heretical sect doesn't count.
-
I don't know why you would say that. The peaceful acceptance of Pope B proves he's the Pope; and therefore proves that A is not the Pope.
No, Pope A was elected and accepted his election, he is therefore the legitimate pope, the scenario says: "You have a conclave where a man is elected pope, accepts..." without regard to UA, this makes him the legitimate pope. There is no getting out of this.
Then it says: "the Cardinals change their mind, depose Pope A, and elect instead Pope B". The Cardinals already elected Pope A, so Pope A is the pope, it is too late for them to do anything about it, the stupid cardinals can change their minds all they want and vote 8 more times till the scenario plays out all the way to Pope H, but that will not change the fact that Pope A is the pope. Their change of mind does not depose the legitimate pope, Pope A in this scenario is the pope.
It goes on; "Then the conclave ends and they roll out Pope H as the Pope. You have Universal Acceptance of Pope H". Which is to say that UA is a farce, a phony and a lie because it is used to deceive the people into believing that the one who is the pope is not the pope, while at the same time it deceives the people into believing in one who is not the pope, is the pope.
-
No, Pope A was elected and accepted his election, he is therefore the legitimate pope, the scenario says: "You have a conclave where a man is elected pope, accepts..." without regard to UA, this makes him the legitimate pope. There is no getting out of this.
Then it says: "the Cardinals change their mind, depose Pope A, and elect instead Pope B". The Cardinals already elected Pope A, so Pope A is the pope, it is too late for them to do anything about it, the stupid cardinals can change their minds all they want and vote 8 more times till the scenario plays out all the way to Pope H, but that will not change the fact that Pope A is the pope. Their change of mind does not depose the legitimate pope, Pope A in this scenario is the pope.
It goes on; "Then the conclave ends and they roll out Pope H as the Pope. You have Universal Acceptance of Pope H". Which is to say that UA is a farce, a phony and a lie because it is used to deceive the people into believing that the one who is the pope is not the pope, while at the same time it deceives the people into believing in one who is not the pope, is the pope.
Problem is, without UPA you may never know was there secretly a Pope A(e.g Siri).
-
Problem is, without UPA you may never know was there secretly a Pope A(e.g Siri).
The problem also is, using UPA you still may never know. Which is why we know it is not a Catholic doctrine.
-
How am I missapplying the doctrine?
One difference that comes to mind is that I reject the Arian heresy.
No, but (if I were alive then, and I know what I do now, and), if you denied the legitimacy of a Pope that the entire Church accepted, I would have used the UPA doctrine to refute your error that led you into schism. And history proves that I would have been right, and you would have wrong, since every Pope that was universally accepted during the Arian heresy was the true Pope.
They were wrong about doctrine, but they weren't wrong about the identity of the Pope. All the true Catholics agreed avout who the true Pope was, and the Arians agreed with them
I agree that the vote of public heretics and apostates doesn't count. That's why your vote doesn't count today, just as the vote of every other fallen away Catholic who left the Church for a heretical sect doesn't count.
Even the Arians unlike you would have refused to follow a devil-worshiping layman. In your blindness you are now making the SSPX to be the guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy. But Our Lord didn’t make the SSPX to be the Vicar of Christ. He made Peter and his successors to be the supreme authority on matters of faith and morals. If you have UPA then you also have absolute confidence in the truth of the pope’s doctrine. But you don’t conform yourself to his doctrine and therefore you are a hypocrite. The only way your position can be justified is if there isn’t UPA.
-
The historians do not agree with you. The Liber Pontificalis has Pope Martin I still being the pope more than a year AFTER Pope St Eugene I was elected. Those theologians who wrote about UPA would have been aware of that.
It's also possible for there NOT to be UPA of a legitimate pope. We saw that in the so-called Western schism, where there was indeed a legitimate Pope, but the Church couldn't agree on who it was. So that means there could be a legitimate Pope that the Church is unaware of ... e.g., a Siri scenario.
-
No, Pope A was elected and accepted his election, he is therefore the legitimate pope, the scenario says: "You have a conclave where a man is elected pope, accepts..." without regard to UA, this makes him the legitimate pope. There is no getting out of this. Then it says: "the Cardinals change their mind, depose Pope A, and elect instead Pope B". The Cardinals already elected Pope A, so Pope A is the pope, it is too late for them to do anything about it ...
Ah, okay I see what you were getting at, but I basically answered your point when I said Pope A was not the pope "for whatever reason." Since we're discussing hypotheticals, I'll add one more hypothetical fact to our scenario: Pope A was never validly baptized. That's why he never became Pope. In this scenario, everyone who rejected Pope B, even though he was universally accepted, because they were sure Pope A had been elected and accepted first, would have fallen into schism.
...the stupid cardinals can change their minds all they want and vote 8 more times till the scenario plays out all the way to Pope H, but that will not change the fact that Pope A is the pope. Their change of mind does not depose the legitimate pope, Pope A in this scenario is the pope.
It goes on; "Then the conclave ends and they roll out Pope H as the Pope. You have Universal Acceptance of Pope H". Which is to say that UA is a farce, a phony and a lie because it is used to deceive the people into believing that the one who is the pope is not the pope, while at the same time it deceives the people into believing in one who is not the pope, is the pope.
Well, if we're going to allow hypothetical scenarios to establish which Catholic doctrines are a farce and lies used to deceive people, what doctrine will be left standing? What if the bread and wine don't really undergo transubstantiation during the consecration after all? What if God really isn't a Trinity? Either we accept what the Church teaches or we don't.
Not too long ago Traditional Catholic accepted all that was universally held by theologians before Vatican II; they didn't pick and choose and then use far fetched hypothetical scenarios in an effort to prove the one's they didn't like were a farce, and a lie. Those were the good-old-days when Traditional Catholics were traditional Catholics. They didn't just attend the Traditional Mass, they believed traditional doctrine.
-
It's also possible for there NOT to be UPA of a legitimate pope. We saw that in the so-called Western schism, where there was indeed a legitimate Pope, but the Church couldn't agree on who it was. So that means there could be a legitimate Pope that the Church is unaware of ... e.g., a Siri scenario.
True, but not if there's another Pope alive who is universally accepted ... e.g., John XIII.
-
True, but not if there's another Pope alive who is universally accepted ... e.g., John XIII.
But, again, we've had Popes who were universally accepted, forced out and jailed, and then another universally accepted. That subsequent Universal Acceptance did not and could not strip the legitimate pope of his office.
What that shows is that the Church is capable of some material error regarding the identity of the true Pope.
-
Ah, okay I see what you were getting at, but I basically answered your point when I said Pope A was not the pope "for whatever reason." Since we're discussing hypotheticals, I'll add one more hypothetical fact to our scenario: Pope A was never validly baptized. That's why he never became Pope. In this scenario, everyone who rejected Pope B, even though he was universally accepted, because they were sure Pope A had been elected and accepted first, would have fallen into schism.
Well, if we're going to allow hypothetical scenarios to establish which Catholic doctrines are a farce and lies used to deceive people, what doctrine will be left standing? What if the bread and wine don't really undergo transubstantiation during the consecration after all? What if God really isn't a Trinity? Either we accept what the Church teaches or we don't.
Yes, the whole hypothetical thing applies to both, the scenario and UA.
Not too long ago Traditional Catholic accepted all that was universally held by theologians before Vatican II; they didn't pick and choose and then use far fetched hypothetical scenarios in an effort to prove the one's they didn't like were a farce, and a lie. Those were the good-old-days when Traditional Catholics were traditional Catholics. They didn't just attend the Traditional Mass, they believed traditional doctrine.
Agreed. And "Universally held" does not mean the current theologians, nor does it mean the current theologians along with those of the last few hundred years. It means the teaching is accepted as being of the faith by almost all of the people, theologians, Fathers, Doctors, etc., since the time of the Apostles. IOW, over the centuries a relative few may have been known to reject or argue against it, all the rest accepted it. That is what the Church means whenever She uses the word Universal in the context of UA.
This is why UA is either misnamed and/or cannot apply. If it is a doctrine, then it must apply to everything NO as well as identify the pope - which simply cannot be.
-
This is why UA is either misnamed and/or cannot apply. If it is a doctrine, then it must apply to everything NO as well as identify the pope - which simply cannot be.
You're making up your own doctrine based on what you think the phrase has to mean. UA doesn't mean whatever is universally accepted is infallibly true. It means if the Pope is universally accepted, it is infallibly true that he is the Pope. The object of the UA is the Pope, not anything and everything.
-
You're making up your own doctrine based on what you think the phrase has to mean. UA doesn't mean whatever is universally accepted is infallibly true. It means if the Pope is universally accepted, it is infallibly true that he is the Pope. The object of the UA is the Pope, not anything and everything.
You misunderstand. Like Xavier, you do not make the distinction between "unanimous" and "universal".
What UA is saying, is that all the theologians and fathers etc., since the time of the Apostles accept which ever pope is currently pope. That is what UA is means, which only makes sense if you reduce UA to; "whoever gets elected is pope." Beyond that, the term itself makes zero sense.
The pope cannot be "Universally Accepted" and at the same time exclude all the Fathers since the time of the Apostles from the formula. If anything, all he can be is Unanimously Accepted by the current Cardinals, or hierarchy, or whoever one decides is both current and included in the word "Unanimous".
OTOH, if the idea is actually legit, then it would necessarily be specific, it would not leave room to wonder . It would be "the UA of the cardinals" or the "UA of the hierarchy" or the "UA of all the members of the whole Church", even "UA of the whole world" so that all the heads of state that the pope deals with know he's the pope too, but as is, at best, the idea is altogether meaningless and not a doctrine of the Church.
-
You're making up your own doctrine based on what you think the phrase has to mean. UA doesn't mean whatever is universally accepted is infallibly true. It means if the Pope is universally accepted, it is infallibly true that he is the Pope. The object of the UA is the Pope, not anything and everything.
That's actually not true. UA, as described by the theologians, is a function of the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and actually derives from it. So, it is in fact true that anything which the Church accepts universally as being "of faith" must necessarily be so.
-
That is what UA is means, which only makes sense if you reduce UA to; "whoever gets elected is pope." Beyond that, the term itself makes zero sense.
Yes, this would explain that status of those Popes who were legitimately elected ... only to have the Church universally accept another.
-
You're making up your own doctrine based on what you think the phrase has to mean. UA doesn't mean whatever is universally accepted is infallibly true. It means if the Pope is universally accepted, it is infallibly true that he is the Pope. The object of the UA is the Pope, not anything and everything.
You have already been given examples proving that this is not the case.
-
That's actually not true. UA, as described by the theologians, is a function of the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and actually derives from it. So, it is in fact true that anything which the Church accepts universally as being "of faith" must necessarily be so.
I didn't say anything universally accepted as de fide isn't infallibly true. I said anything and everything universally accepted isn't infallibly true. Not everything is taught as de fide, or accepted as de fide.
But your explanation of the passive infallibility of the ecclesia credens failed to mention that it "depends and is caused by [the] active infallibility" (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-meaning-of-'indefectibility'-according-to-church-teaching/) of the ecclesia docens. Because the teaching Church is infallible when it defines doctrine, the believing Church is infallible in believing when it gives the assent of faith to what has been infallibly taught.
But UPA is slightly different. Since the Church is not infallible in electing, the universal acceptance of the one elected is not "caused by active infallibility". UPA is caused by God and it serves as an infallible sign attesting to the truth.
Since the Church is not infallible in electing, there must be something in addition to the election that renders the proposition infallible quoad nos. If not, how could the Church ever be sure it had a true Pope? What if, unbeknownst to all, he wasn't validly baptized? What if the previous pope, whom they thought was dead, was really alive somewhere?
If the Church can't be infallibly sure that the Pope is the Pope, how can it be infallibly sure a "Pope" who defined a dogma was really a Pope? Since the certitude of faith depends on certitude that the Pope is the Pope, there has to be an infallible sign attesting to the truth. If not, everything the Church has taught in the past would become uncertain. If the sign is not present in some cases the Pope remains doubtful, and therefore is considered to pope at all, even if is really is the Pope. But if an infallible sign was never present, possible doubt would always exist, and every pope would be more or less doubtful. That's why there must be an infallible sign that removes all possible doubt.
That infallible sign is the peaceful acceptance of the election, and it happens as soon as the Church learns about the election and doesn't contest it. From that point on, he's the Pope and we're stuck with him until death do us part. We've had UPA with every Pope for centuries, including our great and glorious Pope Francis, or as I call him, the Divine Chastisement sent by God to punish the wretched Catholics today (who deserve far worse), and to see who will remain in the Church and keep the faith through the divine chastisement.
-
I didn't say anything universally accepted as de fide isn't infallibly true. I said anything and everything universally accepted isn't infallibly true. Not everything is taught as de fide, or accepted as de fide.
Well, said that UA applies only to the papacy.
-
Here is a decent article explaining the flaws in Salsa and Disco UPA theory.
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-universal-acceptance-guarantee.html?m=1 (http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-universal-acceptance-guarantee.html?m=1)
Their own sources refute them. And given that the r&r don’t actually obey the pope (neither do the vast majority of the Novus Ordo) it is almost unbelievable that they would choose their own unique version of UPA to hang their hat on because the same principle would oblige them to obey the pope. They are heaping coals on their own heads.
-
Here is a decent article explaining the flaws in Salsa and Disco UPA theory.
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-universal-acceptance-guarantee.html?m=1 (http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-universal-acceptance-guarantee.html?m=1)
Their own sources refute them. And given that the r&r don’t actually obey the pope (neither do the vast majority of the Novus Ordo) it is almost unbelievable that they would choose their own unique version of UPA to hang their hat on because the same principle would oblige them to obey the pope. They are heaping coals on their own heads.
I just read through the guys attempted refutation of UPA and find it difficult to believe that you didn't spot all the glaring holes in his arguments. Did you actually read it or just skim through it?
-
I just read through the guys attempted refutation of UPA and find it difficult to believe that you didn't spot all the glaring holes in his arguments. Did you actually read it or just skim through it?
He didn’t refute UPA. He didn’t try to refute UPA. He refuted your clumsy and incoherent application of the principle. But I guess you are too blind to understand the difference.
-
Since the Church is not infallible in electing, there must be something in addition to the election that renders the proposition infallible quoad nos. If not, how could the Church ever be sure it had a true Pope? What if, unbeknownst to all, he wasn't validly baptized? What if the previous pope, whom they thought was dead, was really alive somewhere?
You are inserting impossible, hypothetical ideas into the election, which is a necessity, in order to arrive at an infallible quod nos from a fallible election.
What you are doing is reducing the election and everything that went into it's establishment to something less than a formality, because inherent in your idea, is that the only way to really know, the true test is a UA.
IOW, you can do without the conclave, but not a UA. You are saying a UA proves that which the conclave was incapable of, which of course makes the conclave worse than a formality, it makes it a waste of time.
Reality time! Reality is - the cardinals elect a pope, the man accepts his election, Habemus Papam, we have a new pope, the news is broadcast throughout the Church and around the world for days or weeks, and with that, the whole world knows who the pope is. There is no more to it then that, there just isn't.
If, hypothetically, the cardinals want to say the wrong man is the pope, then the reality is that no one will ever know until it is proven and declared as such by the Church, then the Church broadcasts that news throughout the Church and world so everyone knows. Then the cardinals will elect another pope and the process repeats. It's not complicated.
If there is not a UA, so what, the entire process meticulously developed over centuries as a result of the greatest minds in the Church since the time of St. Peter into the way it is, not by accident and it has no need of a UA, whatever it is.
-
Heh. If we have indeed discussed it precisely a dozen times, then it has also been exactly a dozen times that you have evaded both questions Q1: Where is the Teaching Church today? Q2: Does the Teaching Church recognize the Pope? The answer to those questions is the first answer to this crisis.
To Q1: The question is meaningless, or at least too vague to be susceptible of a response. The interrogative "where" asks for a location. The Catholic Church is not a physical object and therefore does not exist in a physical location. Not that I think you think the Church is a physical object, but your question implies that you do. If you could formulate your first question more accurately, perhaps someone could answer it for you.
To Q2: Does the Teaching Church recognize the Pope? Answer: There is no reigning pope today for anyone to recognize, nor can anyone currently be identified as belonging to the Teaching Church. If you would like to dispute that, you may simply provide the name of someone whom you claim to belong to the Teaching Church and we can take a look at your claim.
-
In any case, there is no universal public acceptance of George Bergoglio as pope on the part of Catholics, so the question is moot anyway. If someone is appealing to the mass of people who call themselves Catholic today, most of them don't believe that abortion, divorce, contraception, sodomy, etc. are mortal sins. Most of them don't believe in transubstantiation. People who don't accept these teachings are not Catholics, therefore their opinions are not relevant to a discussion of whether most Catholics accept George Bergoglio as pope.
Now, once you eliminate all those heretics from the discussion, the people you are left with are basically the ones we would call traditional Catholics, broadly speaking. Among those people it is true that a majority of them, probably, believe Francis is the pope, but the fact is that significant numbers of them don't. Probably many of them think George is likely the pope but are confused about how he is able to be such an open heretic and pope at the same time, and may be unsure in their own minds about the question. Then you have some who think Ratzinger is the pope. Then you have the sedevacantists. But however you look at it, among people who profess the Catholic Faith and do actually accept its teachings, there is nothing even remotely approaching a universal consensus that George is pope. So I think the UPA discussion is irrelevant to the current situation. Whatever acceptance George enjoys, it is far from being either universal or peaceful among Catholics.
-
John Daly posted the following in 2006, long before Salsa and Disco wrote their book. He explains why it doesn't make sense for someone who refuses to obey the pope to assert UPA.
Hello and welcome Matt! You have asked several interesting questions and I should like to tackle just one of them, when you say “Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict cuм ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?”
It happens that I had a correspondence a short time ago with an enquirer on the same topic and I am pasting in below the exchange to speak for itself. I am “JD” and my enquirer is “MM”.
JD Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.
Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?
On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!
[To this I received the following reply with my answers interspersed]
MM In your e-mail you mentioned that JP2's followers who "accepted" him as pope rejected the notion that contraception is a deadly sin. But if that's the case, wouldn't those "Catholics" be outside the Church, therefore making their acceptance of him or not a moot point?
JD Denial of the Church's teaching condemning contraception is not usually considered enough to exclude one from membership of the Church. But supposing it were, you are effectively excluding over 90% of those who constitute the quasi-unanimous consensus recognising the V2 popes. Add those who deny other doctrines - Hell, impossibility of women priests, etc and you reach 95%. Where has your consensus gone? And what kind of a Church is it 95% of whose apparently recognised followers are not even members of her? Certainly not one whose remaining <5% can constitute the peaceful unanimous consensus referred to by John of St Thomas, Billot, St Alphonsus etc. It must after all be extremely uncomfortable giving the "sign of peace" to non-Catholics and elbowing them at the communion-rail (I mean in the cookie-queue) while knowing that they are recognised as Catholics by the Vicar of Christ. Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.
MM Could it not be said then that those "neo-Catholics" who accept the entire moral teaching of the Church and accept V2 in good faith be the ones who matter as far as universally recognizing a man as pope?
JD To my mind that involves so much adjustment of the Billot doctrine that the result is no more than a private opinion. The neo-Church recognises all the neo-Catholics as her members irrespective of their adhesion to Catholic doctrine. If the consensus is composed by the tiny percentage for whom the teaching of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith and the V2 popes are their proximate rule of faith, it has become invisible and unverifiable.
MM However, does it even matter if in actuality they accept JP2's teachings as long as they recognize in him the papacy (this is only as far as Billot's position is concerned; I'm under the impression that he teaches that what's important is that the man is recognized as pope by Church Universal, and that whether or not they assent to his teachings is irrelevant to this one very particular issue)?
JD No. This is wrong. I tried to make this point clear last time but I probably didn't do a very good job of expressing it. May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?
Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.
It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?
And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.
If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.
You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).
Ave Maria!
John DALY
Source: http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37 (http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37)