Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope  (Read 21453 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8213
  • Reputation: +7164/-1
  • Gender: Male
Universal acceptance of a Pope
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2012, 03:41:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Brother,

    How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.


    I'm guessing that brotherfrancis is refering to the notion that John Paul I supposedly wanted to get rid of people in the Church whom he knew were Masons, which led to the Masons murdering him.

    I believe that to be quite possible, though I don't think the Church would have been restored because he was not against the changes made by Vatican.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #16 on: November 23, 2012, 04:37:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, that was interesting commentary, Brother Francis, but I'm afraid your understanding of the requisite acceptance is pretty much at odds with the teaching of John of St.Thomas and other theologians.

    To reiterate the above points,

    1. The nominal acceptance required given to an elect as the new head of the universal Church is easily and immediately recognizable as such

    2. When we are speaking of moral unanimity of acceptance, it is primarily among the Bishops of the universal Church who have a teaching office and are part of the episcopal college.

    both of which were documented earlier.

    Now, a few additional considerations I did not want to go into since they were somewhat tangential, but since they've all found their way into this thread now, about each of the individual three persons, very briefly,

    1. If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties, particularly if we take sedevacantist reasoning for granted. Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics? The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve.

    He also wrote a certain letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, 1988 - to ask him not to break from the Church. Should he not rather have told his (alleged) underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the truth concerning the election, news they who had been so baffled with the goings on would have received with elation, and work with them?

    It's clear this theory is altogether without foundation.

    2. Pope John Paul I, for one thing, took the name of the two Popes who preceded him and as others have said, his many statements also make clear his thinking.

    3. Lastly, coming to St.Padre Pio, this worthy son of St.Francis for that matter believed Pope Paul VI was the Pope and wrote a letter to him to that effect.

    Stevus, as a matter of fact, it was a discussion of Archbishop Lefebvre's views that began this thread. Here is the Archbishop,

    Quote
    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.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #17 on: November 23, 2012, 05:59:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Lastly, coming to St.Padre Pio, this worthy son of St.Francis for that matter believed Pope Paul VI was the Pope and wrote a letter to him to that effect.


    Nishant, I have previously posted something that shows the "letter" Padre Pio wrote to Paul VI isn't credible. Here's what someone else had to say:

    Quote
    Another set of dubious quotes attributed to Padre Pio are quotes which praise the Second Vatican Council and the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, which endorsed contraception in the form of Natural Family Planning (for more information, see: Natural Family Planning is Contraception). These dubious quotes come from a Letter to Paul VI which is purported to be written by Padre Pio. There are two versions of the letter. The first version, translated from L'Osservatore Romano, is as follows:


    Quote
    "Your Holiness:


    Availing myself of Your Holiness' meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet.


    The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs.


    I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times.


    In the name of my spiritual sons and of the "Praying Groups" I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae", and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives.


    May God grant truth to triumph, and, may pence be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians.


    Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the "Praying Groups", all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection.


    Your Holiness' most humble servant,


    Padre Pio, Capuchin


    San Giovanni Rotondo, 12th September, 1968."


    Quote
    The second version, which differs from the first one, seems to be an EWTN translation. It is as follows:


    Quote
    "Your Holiness,


    I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of him whom you are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been in the first line in love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue in its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.


    I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, for the innumerable necessities of the people of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with his Grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical "Humanae Vitae"; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.


    May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.


    Prostrate at your feet, I beg you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also to bless all our good endeavours which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.


    Humbly yours,            


    P. Pio, Capuchin"


    Quote
    Interestingly enough, the older version of the letter from L'Osservatore Romano, while it mentions Humanae Vitae, makes no mention of the Second Vatican Council. It seems as though the editor of the second version of the letter, which appears to be EWTN, interpolated this statement to make it seem as though Padre Pio embraced the Second Vatican Council. Yet inconsistently enough, EWTN hosts both versions of the letter on two different parts of their website. Due to the varying versions of the letter, the authentic text of the original letter is needed. This is assuming that there in fact is an original text outside of that which was printed in L'Osservatore Romano. The letter was printed for the public for the first time in the October 10, 1968 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, one month after the letter was said to be written by Padre Pio. If it turns out there is an original text, and if the text turns out to match what was printed in L'Osservatore Romano (or on EWTN), the question still remains: was the letter written by Padre Pio? In all probability, it was not. Padre Pio died only three weeks after the letter was supposedly written by him. During this time, he was bedridden and could not write, but instead dictated his letters to others who wrote for him. There is no telling whether or not those who wrote for him faithfully wrote down what he said, or whether Padre Pio proofread and confirmed the text before it was sent.

    Offline brotherfrancis75

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #18 on: November 23, 2012, 06:06:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Brother,

    How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.

    This is one of those things that are among the most difficult to understand.  Despite many appearances John Paul I and Cardinal Siri were not liberals at all.  Also words like "liberal' can be used in a more precise Catholic sense or a more imprecise non-Catholic sense.  The complicated truth is that Catholics like Cardinal Siri and (IMO) Pope John Paul I belonged to what is often called the "Bonapartist" tradition.  Their politics and style derive from Napoleon Bonaparte so this becomes a question of whether Napoleon was a Catholic or a militant atheist.

    This issue is truly complex (to say the least!) but IMO Napoleon was very much a Roman Catholic soldier.  Heaven knows he was no saint...  But he and his political faction were absolutely anti-Jacobin and anti-atheist.  Therefore it is illogical to say that the Bonapartists were liberals in any Catholic sense of the word.  In standard Catholic language they were Catholic "Imperialists" who supported Napoleon as the actual champion of the Imperial House of Hapsburg in the tradition of Charlemagne and the other Catholic Caesars.

    Later the Bonapartists flourished under Napoleon III and had many loyal followers including Queen Victoria, President Jefferson Davis, President U.S. Grant, President Wilson, President Truman and President Ford, along with Cardinal Siri and Pope John Paul I.  If this list upsets many readers, please remember my list is political, not religious.  For example, we don't have to like Woodrow Wilson, but we should understand that he was closely allied with the genuine Catholic Church of his time.  For us Catholics "liberal" means "militant atheist" and Wilson was a pious Protestant, not any kind of militant atheist.  In short, the Bonapartists were conservatives, not liberals in any Catholic meaning of the word.  And Pope JPI likewise.

    Assuming there is something to all this, then how "was JPI possibly going to restore the Church?"  Although hypotheticals are always of limited value, there was a pretty clear way in which that "might have been."  Given how profoundly President Ford was anti-Communist and for Catholic Nationalist Spain, what if Ford had received the support from Reagan that Reagan ought to have given to Ford and Ford had won the 1976 Presidential election instead of Carter?

    Ford held a genuinely historic summit with Francisco Franco in Madrid in May 1975 where Ford made clear he intended for Nationalist Spain to be the foremost power in Europe and America's number one ally in the Old World.  What if!!  If Ford had won in 1976 the Catholic Nationalists would have remained in power in Madrid, the global network of Nationalist Spain would have protected and promoted Catholicism world-wide, JPI would have become Pope in 1978 and the C.I.A. would never have arranged for the murder of Pope JPI in the Vatican.  Just one among the many "what if's" we Catholics can ruminate over in our leisure hours...

    Then the plans of JPI to restore the Latin Mass would have happened, the Catholic episcopacy would have been restored world-wide, V2 would have become only a fading memory of those bizarre 60s, the U.S.S.R. would have been defeated and Russia integrated into a Christian West and, well, you get the point.  Then the Neo-Liberal Bolsheviks of the Mont Pelerin Society  would have shriveled on the vine, Clinton's Reform Communism would have probably been broken up in the streets by riot police, Al Gore would have just been one more weirdo and Israhell would never have had the opportunity to trash the planet as they've now done.  Would've been nice!  And so things might have been if only the pious and conservative Gerald Ford had kept the Presidency in '76.

    "Sigh..."
     
     :smile:   :pop:

     

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #19 on: November 23, 2012, 07:23:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Ok, excellent.

    It's always interesting to read the rather ingenious theories both John Lane and John Daly try to come up with to save sedevacantism, both in trying to blunt the force of the argument and in trying to turn it on SSPXers and non-sedevacantists! It's a good attempt, but I think it falls short.

    Against these, though, two points may be noted, which are both alike easily proved from authority.

    First, that universal consent given to such and such a person as head of the universal Church and the one to whom supreme jurisdiction has passed in act is not something more or less imperceptible or requires great delay to be certain of but is in fact immediately recognizable as such.

    Here is Msgr.Journet describing the same, referencing John of St.Thomas,

    Quote
    But the 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 (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).


    A simple nominal acceptance of his person as Pope, say in one's letters and speeches, or in one's private and public prayers for Pope Benedict XVI as Pope is enough for the same.

    The second point, which it appears to me is even more devastating, is that this is a truth primarily received on magisterial authority - that is, it is declared by a moral unanimity among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort when it is said for instance "The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact" in the former and "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession” in the latter, to which declaration of the ordinary and universal magisterium dispersed throughout the world we give an assent of faith as to something infallibly true called ecclesiastical faith.

    That's why I think the notion that we are in an interregnum is self-refuting - for assuming we were in one, then such a universal consent among Bishops that this individual - Benedict XVI - is the Pope would suffice to actually pass on to him the supreme jurisdiction by such an universal acceptance, and also to show infallibly that "all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled".


    A few points:

    1.  I do not think we can put the post Vatican II popes in one basket here.  There are differences between John XXIII, Paul VI, verse John Paul II and Benedict who I believe can be studied together.  

    2.  I do not see it as any urgent situation to study John Paul I, as his time was short, and his actions as "pope," were not to bind Catholics to evil laws or or heresy.

    3.  So, I would like to focus my attention on the two latter claimants who I believe the case of a failure to universal acceptance is airtight.

    4.  At the time of the election of John Paul II, there was a growing sedevacantist movement that outright rejected his claim.  Second, there was a very large body of Catholics who accepted him only in name as pope, but not in any Catholic sense as a pope.  

    The second group treated John Paul II and Benedict XVI as figureheads whose teaching and laws were rejected.  Further, this group rejected the authority of the bishops in communion with these men.  

    Whatever way you want to slice it, your argument that using a man's name as pope, but not in anyway considering him as pope would have not in any age of the Church been regarded as a peaceful acceptance.

    Did Catholics at the time of Pius XII's election, form numerous groups of independent chapels in opposition to his teaching, laws, and hierarchical structure?  The idea of would have been preposterous.  Catholics peacefully accepted Pius XII, and recognized him both in name as pope and in practice as pope, the man who took the office of St. Peter's successor, who would rule over all Catholics in spiritual matters.

    5,.  In addition to the many sedevacantist Catholics, and Catholics who used the name of John Paul and Benedict, but rejected their claims in practice, another group are those who remained under them, and to some extent accepted their laws, but rejected their teachings, especially on matters such as interfaith, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.  

    Catholics for the entire history of the Church have never accepted a pope, while maintaining the idea that they could reject him on matters of Faith or law.  

    6.  The last body of those who accepted the claims of John Paul II and Benedict are by far the largest group, and these are those "catholics" who no longer believe what the Church teaches anyway on many subjects, such as contraception, interfaith, believing the Church's teaching, "no salvation outside the Church, that schismatics and heretics are in partial communion with the Church, believe that all men are saved and no one or almost no one goes to Hell, doubt or deny purgatory, and on and on the list could go.  This body of people is very large, but their acceptance is not relevant, the group who is relevant are the Catholics who have kept the Faith.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #20 on: November 23, 2012, 07:27:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: brotherfrancis75
    This issue is truly complex (to say the least!) but IMO Napoleon was very much a Roman Catholic soldier.  Heaven knows he was no saint...  But he and his political faction were absolutely anti-Jacobin and anti-atheist.  Therefore it is illogical to say that the Bonapartists were liberals in any Catholic sense of the word.  In standard Catholic language they were Catholic "Imperialists" who supported Napoleon as the actual champion of the Imperial House of Hapsburg in the tradition of Charlemagne and the other Catholic Caesars.


    Where did you get that idea from? Napoleon was not a Catholic, he was a deist who thought Catholicism was "superstitious". He eventually attempted to portray himself as a Catholic just so he could gain power and a better image amongst the Catholic Church, but a radical liberal such as himself could not possibly be Catholic. I'm not sure where you got the notion that he and his supporters weren't liberal. He thought that he should be the head of the Catholic Church, not the Pope, which was heretical.

    Napoleon was also excommunicated by Pope Pius VII, and I don't believe that excommunication was ever lifted.

    Offline brotherfrancis75

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #21 on: November 24, 2012, 12:42:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Quote from: brotherfrancis75
    This issue is truly complex (to say the least!) but IMO Napoleon was very much a Roman Catholic soldier.  Heaven knows he was no saint...  But he and his political faction were absolutely anti-Jacobin and anti-atheist.  Therefore it is illogical to say that the Bonapartists were liberals in any Catholic sense of the word.  In standard Catholic language they were Catholic "Imperialists" who supported Napoleon as the actual champion of the Imperial House of Hapsburg in the tradition of Charlemagne and the other Catholic Caesars.


    Where did you get that idea from? Napoleon was not a Catholic, he was a deist who thought Catholicism was "superstitious". He eventually attempted to portray himself as a Catholic just so he could gain power and a better image amongst the Catholic Church, but a radical liberal such as himself could not possibly be Catholic. I'm not sure where you got the notion that he and his supporters weren't liberal. He thought that he should be the head of the Catholic Church, not the Pope, which was heretical.

    Napoleon was also excommunicated by Pope Pius VII, and I don't believe that excommunication was ever lifted.

    To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 essay on Emperor Napoleon I:  "Napoleon was not an unbeliever; but he would not admit that anyone was above himself, not even the pope.  'Alexander the great', he once said to Fontanes, 'declared himself the son of Jupiter. And in my time I find a priest who is more powerful than I am.'"  

    The same entry also clarifies:  "In the first of his captivity, Napoleon complained to Montholon of having no chaplain.  'It would rest my soul to hear Mass', he said.  Pius VII petitioned England to accede to Napoleon's wish, and the Abbé Vignali became his chaplain.  On 20 April, 1821, Napoleon said to him: 'I was born in the Catholic religion. I wish to fulfill the duties it imposes, and receive the succour it administers." To Montholon he affirmed his belief in God, read aloud the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the acts of the Apostles. He spoke of Pius VII as 'an old man full of tolerance and light'. 'Fatal circumstances,' he added 'embroiled our cabinets. I regret it exceedingly.' Lord Rosebery has attached much importance to the paradoxes with which the emperor used to tease Gourgaud, and amused himself in maintaining the superiority of Mohammedanism, Protestantism, or Materialism. One day, when he had been talking in this strain, Montholon said to him: 'I know that your Majesty does not believe one word of what you have just been saying'. 'You are right', said the emperor. 'At any rate it helps to pass an hour.'"

    Catholics should notice that anti-Catholics systematically denounce every Catholic hero much the same.  It isn't just Napoleon Bonaparte.  Emperor Constantine is said to be no good.  Charlemagne is falsely accused of polygamy.  The Ottonian emperors are considered beneath remembrance.  The great Hohenstaufen  emperors are vilified.  Most of our greatest kings are routinely defamed.  Do we see a pattern here?  Are our laymen as incapable of heroic virtues as our enemies claim?  Or is it instead that our enemies are often vicious and hate-filled liars?  Most likely the latter.

    We shouldn't mindlessly parrot the hatreds of anti-Catholics against virtually all our greatest heroes.  This is very short-sighted and only serves the interests of those who do us harm.  We should take the trouble to understand that Napoleon Bonaparte did great things for the glory of the Catholics and the Catholics' God.  We owe our Brother-in-Christ the Emperor Napoleon a great debt of eternal gratitude.

    And if we can't think of what for we should stop being so lazy and read some good Catholic history books.  The great deeds of our Emperor Napoleon I are vividly recorded in many of them.  Rather than think ourselves too good for Napoleon we should be truly humble and appreciate the greatness of our betters.  


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #22 on: November 24, 2012, 12:45:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Napoleon was a forerunner of the Antichrist.

    He summoned attempted to conquer the Holy Land and he summoned a Sanhedrin.


    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #23 on: November 24, 2012, 02:51:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello Ambrose.

    I think the first question before us should be, Moral unanimity primarily among whom? I gave above my answer, "among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort ... "

    Would you disagree? The authorities say it follows as something infallibly true which proves that it must come from strict teaching authority properly so called. Thus Msgr. Noort speaks of it being the ordinary and universal magisterium that gives a witness to the legitimacy of the succession.

    So I deny that the level the theologians are speaking of is the same as what you seem to require. A morally unanimous acceptance by said Bishops suffices.

    The second question is, How many such Bishops are there in the world today and how many of them accept Pope Benedict XVI (yes, we can speak about the current Pope specifically if that is okay with you) as for all practical intents and purposes as being the Pope? John Lane's own theory about this, which I think you agree with, works against you here.

    PS: SS, yes, I remember we discussed before what I think a member of your forum said about St.Padre Pio's letter. I don't know if we should go into this in detail here, but if you wish to, I'll say I find the response unconvincing - it implies both L'Osservatore Romano and EWTN committed deliberate forgery or manipulation of the letter based on very little evidence - more likely, something simple like the fact that a newspaper article often edits a portion of a letter for reasons of space constraints is the reality.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #24 on: November 24, 2012, 04:19:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Hello Ambrose.

    I think the first question before us should be, Moral unanimity primarily among whom? I gave above my answer, "among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort ... "

    Would you disagree? The authorities say it follows as something infallibly true which proves that it must come from strict teaching authority properly so called. Thus Msgr. Noort speaks of it being the ordinary and universal magisterium that gives a witness to the legitimacy of the succession.

    So I deny that the level the theologians are speaking of is the same as what you seem to require. A morally unanimous acceptance by said Bishops suffices.

    The second question is, How many such Bishops are there in the world today and how many of them accept Pope Benedict XVI (yes, we can speak about the current Pope specifically if that is okay with you) as for all practical intents and purposes as being the Pope? John Lane's own theory about this, which I think you agree with, works against you here.

    PS: SS, yes, I remember we discussed before what I think a member of your forum said about St.Padre Pio's lett  er. I don't know if we should go into this in detail here, but if you wish to, I'll say I find the response unconvincing - it implies both L'Osservatore Romano and EWTN committed deliberate forgery or manipulation of the letter based on very little evidence - more likely, something simple like the fact that a newspaper article often edits a portion of a letter for reasons of space constraints is the reality.


    Nishant,

    Thank you for your response.  My answer follows:

    I do not believe you have carefully examined the sources you use as evidence of your assertion that "among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church," is the only group needed for acceptance.

    Let us look again at the sources:

    AER said:
    Quote
    Certainty of the Pope's Status

    Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

    Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

    But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.


    Van Noort said:
    Quote
    “So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) 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


    Cardinal Billot said:
    Quote
    Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction"


    I have added boldfacing to the parts I would like you to re-read.  In all of the sources, it is very clear that it is not the acceptance of the bishops only, but also the acceptance of the universal Church.  

    I have put forth the argument that in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, many Catholics explicitly denied their claim, others said they accepted it, but only accepted them as figureheads without any power to teach and rule.  These Catholics alone comprise a large body of the Church, and they did not peacefully accept the claim of the these men to be pope.

    I would further argue that the remainder of faithful Catholics, who believe the faith in every point as it was always taught by the magisterium until the death of Pope Pius XII, only believe the claim of these men to the papacy due to their ignorance of the heresy of these men.  

    As John Daly pointed out, part of the accepting of the pope is to believe he is the rule of Faith, and it is clear that those few Catholics who keep their Faith intact in the structure of the Concliar church do not look to these men as their rule of Faith.  The few that I know in the Concliar church who are in confusion about all of this, keep their Faith because they either they are old and learned their Faith from the Church, or if they are younger they learned it from reading old books.  I am not aware of any faithful Catholics who learned their Faith from these "popes," or the bishops in communion with him.  These Catholics have learned their Faith in spite of these men, not from these men.

    Let us analyze this more, who are the members of the Church today who believe the Catholic Faith as taught until the death of Pius XII, and let us look to see if they peacefully have adhered to John Paul II and Benedict.

    1.  The sedevantists, not a huge amount of Catholics, but still a significant minority.

    2.  Those Catholics who resist the anti-popes, but still call them pope.  This is a very large group, and as I have said, they may call these men "pope," but they are not peacefully accepting them, as that would entail treating them as pope, which they have never done.

    3.  Those who adhere to the Conciliar church and live within its structure, but have kept the Faith despite these anti-popes and heretical bishops.  I cannot be certain of the number of these people, but if surveys indicate anything, most "catholics" that call themselves "catholic" no longer accept all of the doctrine or moral teaching of the Church.  

    The Catholics who are faithful in group 3, in my opinion are not informed or do not grasp the issues, and in my opinion, they only accept Benedict and John Paul's claim based on a false belief about who they are and what they teach.  

    But, even if you wish to argue that group 3 whose numbers we are not certain, are accepting their papal claims, it is certain the group 1 explicitly denies those claims, and group 2 lacks any peace about the matter, because they only accept these men in name only, and do not in practice treat them as a pope in any sense.  Therefore, two large bodies of the tiny population of the universal Church, has not peacefully accepted John Paul and Benedict.  

    I am sure I do not need to mention in this that the acceptance of a pope does not rely on the those who are outside the Church, the news media, t.v., and other sources.  The acceptance must come from the Church, and since John Paul II has been elected has become a very small group, as most Catholics have defected from their Faith, and the remainder is the remnant composing the three groups I discussed.  

    Therefore, I believe I have made the case that there has not been a universal peaceful acceptance of the claims of John Paul II and Benedict XVI by the remaining faithful Catholics who make up the Church.  

    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #25 on: November 24, 2012, 10:21:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry, burt Napoleon was NOT a Catholic hero. You call someone who imprisoned Pope Pius VII a hero? Nonsense.


    Offline brotherfrancis75

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #26 on: November 24, 2012, 02:29:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This thread is showing itself to be quite an important topic for our Catholic education.  It seems our understanding of Catholic history is closely related to our comprehension of who is and who is not a Catholic Bishop of Rome.

    We need to correctly identify both the good guys and the bad guys in our history if we are to correctly identify the Catholic and non-Catholic occupants of the Chair of Peter.  The historic Bonapartist heritage shouldn't be seen by us as a primary locus of evil in history because then we fail to see the actual bad guys.  For example, when we imagine that Napoleon was an Anti-christ we thereby fail to notice that the actual Anti-christ of the 19th Century was clearly none other than Abraham Lincoln and not anyone else.  In a similar way it should be glaringly clear to us that  much the greatest enemy of the Catholics in the 20th Century was certainly the Fabian Marxist  Franklin Roosevelt and not anybody else.

    Evidently we Americans have a great problem with recognizing our own American role in Catholic history, both past and present.  Our true American history is anything but any reason for us to think like Americanists and shift the guilt for our own actions onto Europeans like Napoleon.  The evil precursors to Lincoln and his Radical Republicans were Maximilian Robespierre and the Jacobin Party that was aggressively destroyed by the Bonapartists.  Later the American Bonapartist President Grant did much the same to our  own Radical Republican Jacobins.  Good riddance to them!  

    What we need most today is someone like Napoleon to clear out the Zionist Marxists.  Only then can we seriously think about restoring a Roman Catholic onto the Chair of Peter in Rome.



    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #27 on: November 24, 2012, 04:55:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Brotherfrancis, I don't know where you got that from, but you and whoever thumbed you up are sadly mistaken. Napoleon was not a Catholic nor a hero, he was a liberal and a forerunner to the antichrist.

    The fact that you think someone who imprisoned Pope Pius VII and thought he - and not the Pope - should be head of the Catholic was a "Catholic hero" is unfathomable. Please chunk whatever history book you've been reading and find one who was written by a Catholic author with some common sense.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #28 on: November 24, 2012, 05:03:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Please chunk whatever history book you've been reading and find one that was written by a Catholic author with some common sense.


    Correction above.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7077
    • Reputation: +438/-195
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #29 on: November 25, 2012, 01:01:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Brother,

    How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.


    It is also my impression that JPI(1?) was a liberal but possibly he had a road to Damascus moment & that is why he was murdered.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

     

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