Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope  (Read 21529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gregory I

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1542
  • Reputation: +659/-105
  • Gender: Male
Universal acceptance of a Pope
« Reply #135 on: July 24, 2015, 05:44:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My understanding was that basically Vatican II enjoys infallibility not by virtue of being an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but rather a solemn occasion of the Authentic and Ordinary Magisterium.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline Arvinger

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • Reputation: +296/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #136 on: July 25, 2015, 08:57:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant

    Anyway, for purposes of this thread, suffice to say with Fr. Hunter "it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." The reason for this is because, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of Pope". This is a dogmatic fact, infallibly proved by the authority of the Church no less than the canonization of a Saint, or the declaration that some specific book contains errors opposed to the deposit of revelation, or the like. As Van Noort puts it, "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession".


    But the problem remains similar as in case of laity - great many bishops have practically apostatized, thus they are not representative for the Church in regard of universal acceptance of the Pope. If you narrow down the number of bishops to those who keep faith, Traditionalit bishops who rejected V2 Popes or their Magisterium become significant enough to deny the universal acceptance of the Pope.

    Quote from: Nishant

    But not in 1965. In trying to prove Vatican II is infallible, John Daly documents these facts for us, "almost all the world’s bishops were gathered together and at the moment of promulgation of the decrees by the man recognised as pope, not a dissenting voice was heard ... This proportion already surpasses the pro-infallibility consensus at Vatican I, which has always been regarded as morally unanimous ... and if any bishop continued to reject [Vatican II's promulgation] ... after its promulgation and despite his signature to it, the world’s Catholics remained entirely unaware of this fact for at least the next ten years." So, how do you explain that "the man recognised as pope", in Daly's own words, did this in 1965? If even in Dec 1965, he was accepted by the Church, clearly he could not have lost his office by then, so the sedevacantist explanation of Vatican II must be incorrect.


    First of all, as Ladislaus pointed out, recognizing the Pope as validly elected is not enough - to speak about universal acceptance of the Pope his Magisterium must be also accepted by the bishops and the faithful. In case of Vatican II, while voting on the documents many bishops did not even know what they are really voting on, the documents were presented to them without sufficient time to properly read them. Afterwards many bishops said they would never sign Vatican II documents had they known their content, among them Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Vatican II after realizing what the documents really teach. Thus, Paul VI's Magisterium was not universally accepted by the bishops, let alone the Magisterium of John Paul II who showed himself as a modernist from his very first encyclical Redemptor Hominis. The universal acceptance argument remains very shaky at best.


    Offline Amakusa

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 205
    • Reputation: +57/-75
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #137 on: July 25, 2015, 10:05:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Arvinger,

    No, universal acceptance is related to the election and occurs in the first months, especially in modern times since we have television and very broad communication means; it is not related to the magisterium! Therefore, it is clear that John XXIII and Paul VI have been accepted by the whole Church.

    However, what you say about the circumstances of the council may be a good point, if you are able to provide clear information about it.


    Clemens Maria,

    During Vatican II, the Church was made sin just like Our Lord in the Garden of olives. This is the reason why, for the first time, a solemn council did not include infallible teachings, but included errors: therefore it seemed that the Church defected, but actually it did not, because the teachings were not infallible in their content.

    One cannot understand the situation of the Church by a mere dogmatic reasoning. You say that this situation is unprecedented, but it is easy to answer you that the sedevacantist thesis is also unprecedented, since it never happened that the Church be vacant for fifty years and more: it is utterly false to claim, for instance, that the Church has been vacant during the Great Schism (the true Pope was the Roman Pope). Above all, if you say that a pope who has been accepted by the whole Church has defected with all the Catholic hierarchy, it is also unprecedented. There was well and truly moral unanimity when the text on religious freedom was voted, with only 3% of dissent!

    Regarding the circumstances of Vatican II, we are free to reject it. Your point concerning infallible safety is not relevant...
    The baptism of desire and the baptism of blood are dogmas of faith and truths of natural reason: see the article of the New Advent Encyclopedia on baptism, and Catholic Essentials. Those who deny the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood,

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3497
    • Reputation: +1286/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #138 on: July 29, 2015, 07:19:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope Pius XII:  Made it clear to the world in the 1940's, Russia take over,that anyone one who supports the State/Gov't before God, is excommunicated.  When Russia took out true priests/bishops, put them in camps or death, were replaces with only clergy that would support the agenda of Communism.

    Therefore, know them by their fruits: if a pope says the adulterated mass, that is heretical, he is excommunicated.  Therefore, for me, knowing this, I do not follow the examples of the excommunicated.

    Now, does that label me a sedevacantist?  I am following Church Laws.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1061
    • Reputation: +729/-257
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #139 on: August 11, 2015, 02:35:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks Lover of Truth!  cf. http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php//The-Siri-Thesis-2

    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    http://www.novusordowatch.org/sspx_dossier_sede.pdf

    18.  Next Fr. Boulet treats of the Siri thesis, a most interesting explanation of the origin of the crisis.

    Quote
    4.3.  The Case of Cardinal Siri: It is being argued by some Sedevacantists that some very
    serious defects affected the Conclaves that elected Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, then, consequently John- Paul I and John-Paul II.  It is being claimed that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, the former Archbishop of Genoa, Italy was elected Pope in the 1958, 1963 conclaves, and possibly also in 1978.  Cardinal Siri was extremely popular in Italy, mostly for his strong social accomplishments in Genoa.  He was also considered as a strong conservative, even though he did not publicly stand in defence of Tradition during the Vatican II council.  So, apparently, Cardinal Siri had been ‘elected’ Pope at the conclave that followed the death of Pope Pius XII.  Some are going as far as telling us that he had accepted the election of his fellow cardinals, and had taken the name of Gregory XVII.  Shortly before such ‘election’ was to be made public to the world, a group of cardinals would have revolted against him, and forced him to renounce to the supreme pontificate.  Then, Cardinal Roncalli was chosen and appeared to the world as Pope John XXIII.  Some Sedevacantist pulled out a recent report from the FBI to prove such thesis.  They added on that ‘Pope Siri’ secretly appointed cardinals to succeed to him in the future.  Frankly, such theory doesn’t make sense, for a number of reasons.  First of all there is a Church law that binds under secrecy all the proceedings of a conclave, under the penalty of excommunication for whoever would break such seal. Even if Cardinal Siri was properly elected as a Pope, it is a matter of fact that he never showed it in public. He was among the cardinals that paid allegiance to both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. After the 1958 and 1963 conclaves, he went back to his diocese of Genoa.  In 1969, though reluctantly, he adopted the Novus Ordo Missae. Meanwhile, a French priest, Father Guérin, had established a ‘conservative’ community of priests in Genoa. Back in the seventies, Father Guérin was living in Paris, France, where he used to say a weekly Novus Ordo Mass all in Latin, with biretta and incense, which I attended a couple of times. I know personally two members of Fr. Guérin’s community that have been ordained priests by Cardinal Siri. They have now an apostolate in France, and say the Novus Ordo Mass. Their ordination was held with the New Mass, though in a more conservative way. 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.


    a)  It is certainly granted that the acceptance by Cardinal Siri of the “reforms” of Vatican II is evidence that he was not a true Pope, even if he was somehow still a Catholic, which possibility I think we must grant.  But in any case, a doubtful Pope is no Pope.  

    b)  With respect to the alleged peaceful acceptance of the whole Church of Paul VI, however, let us
    review the comments and questions of Fr. Boulet’s master in these questions, Xavier da Silveira.

    Quote
    A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church.  For such acceptation to have been pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?  Would it be enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?  Would it be enough that no voice, or practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?  Or, on the contrary, would a certain very generalized, though not always well defined, distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?  And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?  And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and
    again in published writings, could one still classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of his election by the Sacred College? [Da Silveira, op. cit]


    In the Church as in society generally, the following wisdom applies to the present situation.  “We
    must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era – a permanent state of what I call violent
    peace .”  Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), former Chief of Naval Operations.



     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16