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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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" 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.    

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

 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?

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.